Blocked from Facebook – ICR Removes Another Form of Peer-Review

I am now blocked from commenting on the Facebook page of the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). This was no surprise to me, nonetheless I felt rather sad that they felt they had to cut me off. Below is a screenshot of the ICR meme on which I had made what I thought was a substantive comment. About 20 minutes later my comment was removed and I was no longer able to comment.

My last comment had been here moments before but now these are the only two that remain and I have to ability to comment.

I infrequently commented on the ICR Facebook page and I followed all the rules and beyond. I did not promote my own material by posting links. I was polite to those that called me everything imaginable. I devoted my time and attention to pointing out when very clear mistakes had been make or there was a large piece of the picture missing. I only commented on topics for which I felt I had expertise and something significant to contribute. When replies became hostile I simply didn’t respond.

In many cases I provided information that corrected serious problems with their message. Several times they removed content after becoming aware – via my Facebook comments – that there were factual errors in their posts. One recent example included problems with the content of a video. I wrote about it on this blog after pointing out the problem on their FB page (When Peer-Review Lets You Down: Another YEC Fact-checking Problem). An hour later ICR had removed the video and edited out the offending portion. Here is another example in which they posted a completely erroneous meme in which they were incorrect about how many time Jesus referenced Genesis (A YEC Quote Problem). That one was removed and has not re-appeared and even ICR followers on FB recognized there was a problem after I pointed it out.

Such errors are not uncommon and without someone pointing them out the quality of their work will become even worse. There are not many of us out there that are willing to take the time to examine the YEC literature and provide constructive feedback. By cutting those people off ICR has doomed themselves to repeating their mistakes over and over again. Their internal peer-review process consists of friends with less expertise than the authors looking over material and looking for grammatical errors not content errors. By cutting off all external reviewers they place themselves in great peril of becoming even more isolated from

A few weeks ago I challenged Ken Ham to send his employees to professional scientific conferences so they could learn first hand what is happening in science and challenge themselves with the best of what is out there. YECs organize their own conferences, review their own materials and generally ignore outside criticism other than to claim it is unwarranted.

Unfortunately by blocking myself and other Christians who work in scientific fields, ICR confirms that they are taking the path of Answers in Genesis in carefully managing what their follows are exposed to. I understand why they are doing this. I am an annoyance that too many people listen too. Reasonable comments that point out other points of view are far more dangerous to their message than the sniping of atheist which they continue to tolerate – some have posted thousands of comments – on their Facebook page. Just like AiG, they promote a dichotomous view of the world in which there are only young earth true believers and atheists, everyone in between is just a confused compromiser.

“In other words, by attending conferences and really listening to talks and meeting with scientists they will be placed in a situation where they will see and hear things they can’t unsee and unhear. And this is why Ken Ham doesn’t want them there. By all appearances and from personal experience he doesn’t allow his employees to engage in any significant interactions with non-Christian scientist and especially compromising Christian scientists. The latter are the most dangerous and are to be avoided at all costs because their words are from the devil and can’t be trusted. This behavior is common in insular organizations such as AiG. The more isolated the members become the more distanced they are from the real world. As a result it becomes more and more difficult from members to critique each other and to understand the outside world which makes their critiques of that world less and less reliable as well.

The reduction of contact and dehumanization of the opposition is a tried and true technique for maintaining fealty to a leader or movement. In recent years AiG has become increasingly isolated from world – just as they preach that they must – but since they are in the business of providing responses to the secular world they have to engage that world to understand it lest they just provide answers to straw-men they have created.”

I’m more sad than upset. It’s sad that they are fearful of the message of other Christians. It’s sad that they have cut themselves off from yet another source of outside peer-review.

Comments

I was blocked from posting on “Cowboy Bob” Sorensen’s Facebook page, after the initial post.

When I made a comment about this back at the British Centre for Science Education page (where the interaction with Sorensen had started, he made a disparaging remark about my posts there on his Facebook page) my replies mysteriously reappeared, —- two identical ones, which was of course the evidence that I had been blocked, as I had tried to post, nothing happened, and so I immediately tried again, before the penny dropped. I was then subjected to a barrage of comments — not just on that BCSE page, but also personal emails, from Sorensen and one of his cronies saying that I had lied and threatening a lawsuit (!).

Are there any websites hosted by scientists where creationists are routinely blocked? Obviously persistent rude behavior could elicit a justifiable blocking, but this wasn’t the case with you and ICR, clearly. (Nor with me and Sorensen.)

YEC organizations have a variety of different approaches. Creation Ministries International closely watches their FB feed and directs any criticisms to their help page which just cuts off all further discussion. AIG and Ken Ham FB page are monitered and they do block some people mostly Christians rather than atheists that I can tell but it is hard to tell who is blocked. I just know from communications from friends about who is and who isn’t blocked. ICR has fewer resources and so they have admitted they just don’t have time to moderate. Recently they did warn people about behavior and said they would block but my behavior did not fit their profile and they have continued to allow some really obnoxious users to posts.

Hello is all right. Christine Janis has joined with a conspiracy idea that she was blocked and then unblocked. Her comments are available and she was not blocked. She did not consider other possibilities but made assumptions without evidence. This is common among evolutionists. I am gathering information so I can learn how evolutionists can survive.

Oh, and I should add that at least one of those emails was ‘cced to my department chair (even though I made no mention of my academic affiliation on either the BCSE website or on Sorensen’s Facebook page) —- my chair is used to these creationist shenanigans and finds them amusing.

This action is to me another sign of the continuing weakness of the YEC position and ICR in general. As it continues to cut itself off from anyone outside of the “true believers”, they are doomed to shrink into insignificance. They are at the stage (common to many cults) of defensive action that can become extreme as the looming end draws obviously closer. I think YEC will be around for quite a while, but its relevance is over. When it does finally implode, we need to be there as faithful Christians to help lead the disillusioned and embittered along the path of Christ, and to reach out a welcoming hand.

A Christian friend once linked me to Ray Comfort’s facebook page. I forget the reason why, but I think it was one of the bigoted and fairly offensive posts that usually happen there. I got into a discussion with several of the regulars regarding evolution and how Ray Comfort routinely gets it completely wrong.
They would make some claims about evolution and I would then spend a few minutes researching the matter and correct them, giving several links as sources each time, usually peer-reviewed papers. After my posts were deleted a few times I saved my arguments on a word document for quick later access, and I and several others took to educating anyone who was prepared to listen. It was fun, actually, because whenever Ray posted something about evolution it was invariably completely wrong, and then numerous people would correct him with valid citations, and for a few months the page was a great place to learn.
We were invariably banned for libel and insulting behaviour, which is this case meant quoting Ray directly and criticising him for saying things such atheism leads directly to suicide. Oh, and pointing out that these were reasons why we were banned. We each made another facebook profile to go back there, because by that point it had become a challenge. I ended up on my fifth account, and one person I knew reached number 16. Ray now bans atheists on sight.
I’m actually very glad I went there, though, because that is what really cemented my love of learning about evolution and discussing it with people. The word document I have on my computer is now 12 pages long, and there were a few open-minded creationists that I had very reasonable and enjoyable conversations with, where they would ask a sincere question regarding how evolution works or what evidence we have about the evolution of something in particular, and I would do my best to answer them. Invariably they would stop visiting Ray’s fb page because they didn’t like the bigoted things he posted, but we would message each other and continue the discussion.
As it stands now, his page is just an echo chamber. Every reasonable person was banned or just decided to stop visiting, and his desire for censorship has just resulted in a page where nothing new ever enters anyone’s mind. Which I suppose is exactly how he likes it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh stop, you’re killing me. Heh heh. Yes sir, that’s why i love posting here so much. Just nothing but respect and a christian desire to share the good news. Nothing derogatory here, no sir. Nothing but the best christians have to offer. DO YOU HEAR ME NOW!!!!!!!! CAN YOU SEE IT NH?

I’m afraid I didn’t arrive until after that point, but reading about it was hysterical.
At one point he declared that anyone who didn’t capitalise the word ‘god’ every time they typed it would be banned, and whenever anyone pointed out that this would actually depend on if they were using it as a noun or proper noun, e.g. “in the bible God says…” vs “the god of the bible says”, Ray would ban them for it. I got banned.
If you pointed out that he was merely reinforcing the stereotype of Christians as uneducated, you were banned. If you later reminded people that Ray banned people for using correct grammar, you were banned. I was banned for that as well.
Good times.

Usually I write my FB comments in MS Word and then copy paste into FB so I have a record and so I don’t mess up and lose my comment. This time I made a short comment and I don’t know exactly what I said because it isn’t there anymore. But the gist was that the claim in the Meme is that Pluto is young which is surprising to astronomers. I said that Lisle should not take their surprise as any support of a young earth. The “young” parts of Pluto are still millions of years old and I said that Lisle did not inform his readers that not all the surface of Pluto is “young” looking because the other side has many craters. So Pluto looks like it has a long interesting history of many different ages. The reader of the meme and article associated with this this meme would get the impression that astronomers think all of Pluto is very young but millions of years is not what a YEC reader really is thinking when they hear a YEC say young.

can’t say i didn’t warn you. Do you not think they can’t sense your dripping sarcasm. What about those two posts was in anyway helpful. I’ve read your snarky comments before, your caricatures. I’m sorry,did you say you were a christian? You just don’t get it do you. Altho you do seem to comfort yourself with a self-caricature, the boogey man to the creationists, the frightful creature they are all afraid of. I doubt that seriously. If you are really a christian, then you should have taken my rebuke seriously. You share that you have posted before, even offering corrections about a video that they responded to. I don’t sense fear here. Tell you what Mr. Natural, you seem bored. Many who post here are incapable of logical argumentation. Perhaps you’d like to try me.Teacher of theology, philosophy, logic. Perhaps you could pick a topic. Something big. Important. Not silly stuff like frog genetics. Perhaps we could discuss the actually possibility of a process called evolution occurings. Or perhaps information theory. Astrophysics? Tell you what. you pick. If i agree, then we will start. Some preconditions, though. We must be nice. Concise. No pouting. No changing the subject. And we must agree not to move on to another topic until one of us either concedes the point or answers it. Ready when you are. (legal warning: I’ve never lost a debate. Now i am just bragging. But you probably would say the same thing about yourself. Good. I intend to be nice. But not kind. You don’t deserve it).

Hi Brych, I’ve posted your comments despite my moderation policy. I’ve written quite a bit on my blog and many people know me personally. I’m content to let those words and relationships define who I am. If others feel the same way you do then I will consider your words.

I’ll take that as a no. You say you are an English major? What language? What grade? The meme about Jesus and Genesis is quite clear if you take the time to read it. It states that over half of Christs’ REFERENCES (i’m typing loudly for the hard of reading) were to quotes from the book of Genesis. That’s REFERENCES. It does not say that Over Half of Jesus’s QUOTES were QUOTES from the book of Genesis. REFERENCES to passages, quotes, from Genesis. There are just under forty references to Genesis in the gospels by both Christ and the authors of the gospels. Jesus alludes to or quotes the old testament just under 50 times. OF THOSE FIFTY TIMES, THIRTY ONE ARE ALLUSIONS OR DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE BOOK OF GENESIS. Got that. Thirty one times, out of just under 50 total references to the O.T. Now. I am no genius, and neither are you. But I believe that means that OVER SIXTY PERCENT OF JESUS’ references to the old testament are from the book of Genesis. Now maybe you majored in English. I majored in theology, philosophy, and am considered a mathematical prodigy.
So if you weren’t so busy nit-picking to find anything you remotely think is wrong, and actually read what was said with the LEAST bit of an attempt to be objective instead of hateful, you would realize that they are EXACTLY CORRECT. They were obviously humble enough to correct an error you pointed out to them. Do you give them credit? No, you boast as if to say “Look at me, I proved they made a mistake. I hope you are not Christian, ’cause Lucy, you got some ‘splainin to do”. I think it’s best you not debate me. I wouldn’t want to disillusion you or your fawning followers. I told you I would be watching. I only care when you act cruel or hateful. If you are a Christian you should repent.
I doubt you will post this, unless you’ve developed a sense of humility. And you were smart not to debate me. Shame though. You might have learned something.

I’m curious, please back up this assertion that Jesus alludes to Genesis 31 times out of his 50 references to the OT. Would you mind going to the trouble of naming a few such instances? Your numbers will be far more convincing if you can pin them to something… Even just a few examples will get most of us to give this a second look. No examples on the other hand? That will leave you with some explaining to do.

No, i am not going to play your childish game, unless you first substantiate your charge that they are wrong. You gave no examples yourself. Just blatant unsubstantiated accusations. You get away with this nonsense all the time, and your fawning lemmings just say “duh-huh, duh-huh” and clap along with you. You gave no proof whatsoever of your claim. List the references from the gospels (and yes, you do have to include them all, because they are not all identical) to the book of genesis, list those you think Jesus referred to, and then do your numbers. You people get away with this all the time. Make a claim. Someone disagrees, gives you some info. Your response “well, you didn’t give all or everything to prove your point. Guess what Money, NEITHER DID YOU. So either give your evidence which proves your point, or it remains nothing but a false claim. Upon your response, in other words, after you have proven you have done due diligence, i will gladly flood your page with books, verses, numbers math. I already have it printed. But you will not jerk me around. Support it or back off. And remember, the “meme” said “references” to the book of genesis. Seriously, you think i just made up the numbers? I am nothing like you.

I saw a set of comments that sounded informed disappear quickly from the Pluto article on the morning when it was posted. They were not under your name. The first comment started out with something like, “Come on, Jason, you can do better than that”. Then it went into detail about the temperature of Pluto. Someone asked a question about craters and the person responded. The person also responded to Byrch’s comment as a separate comment. Those comments vanished very quickly, gone by 9 am.
I didn’t see your comments but the fact that it happened to two people makes me wonder if someone was monitoring the comments on that post more intently than usual.

Yes, I my comment wasn’t the only one pulled though I don’t know if the other persons who made comments were also banned as well. My comment might have been made just as they were pulling the others and so wasn’t there for very long.

Am I correct in assuming that Chuck, quagmire123 and Byrch are the same person, and that he comes from a young earth perspective? If so, let me say that as a fellow YEC, I’m appalled at this sort of discourse. Byrch, you’ve displayed a level of pride, arrogance and disrespect that neither cherishes the fellow man that God gave you, nor sets the stage for a meaningful exchange of ideas. As such, you’re squandering an opportunity to further the debate, and you’re jeopardizing an already weak relationship between YECs and non-YECs at a time when we need to be building roads to communication, not tearing them out. It is important that we find a loving and respectful way to strongly disagree with our brothers. I hope you’ll look for a better way.

Trevor, I have no idea who Byrch is. I (chuck) go by either chuck, or occasionally quagmire123. Observing your post filled with nebulous assertions and vacuous accusations, I have no idea whether you are referring to me or not. But before you get too self-righteous, you might want to spend some time perusing other posts here and how they insult, accuse, and caricaturize YEC’s before waxing poetic. If you’re referring to any post by me, you should quickly discern that I don’t really care what viewpoint one has about creation or evolution. No one’s mind ever get’s changed by pretend discourse on the internet. I, as a Christian, only ask that we not spend wasted time attacking the level of intelligence per our opponents and actually try to answer their questions or purview their claims. As to a relationship between yec’s and non-yec’s, there is little to damage, especially if those on this site represent the oec side. There is more interest in nit-picking or desperate attempts to find something, anything, to belittle. An example is NH’s attack on meme about Christ referencing the book of Genesis. By selective reading and giving a meaning to the meme that it didn’t have (it was about Jesus “referencing” the book of Genesis, not “quoting” from it. Christ references the OT passages, or quotes, some 30 times out of his allusions to the Old Testament, which total aprox. 50. This is indeed over half of his “references”. Sixty percent to be exact. That is, of course, over half. Anyone bothering to take the time could have figured that out, if one had wanted to. But so many here have these urges to attack everything yec, they don’t take the time. NH also claims they have blocked him from their facebook page, ostensibly because they can’t handle his expert refutations and error finding. After reading what he posted, I suspect it to be far more likely they didn’t like his use of the Lord’s name in a trivial and mocking manner, a manner many Christians would consider bordering on blasphemy. Seeing as how he has posted freely before, even offering corrections to their posts without any restrictions, I doubt they were suddenly overwhelmed by his knowledge but far more likely to enforce a standard already in place (i.e. no profane language, and yes, blasphemy would be profane).
Rather than boast in victory he should apologize, if he is a Christian. If not, and he really wants to be able to exchange with them, he should apologize anyway. But I expect too much.
Anyone who is hungering for debate will find me readily available. But it will be a debate according to recognized debating procedures. I have no time to waste with what passes as “an exchange of ideas” on the internet. Like I said, it’s very doubtful anyone committed to a viewpoint is going to change it via some revelation by another on the web. Usually people just “shout” at each other. If you think my post (again, I am not byrch) a bit aggressive, it’s because I have witnessed for months how yec’s get treated. And I am sure yec’s do their share of damage. But you referred to our “brothers”. I have no idea who here is actually Christian. I’ve made it clear on this post and several others that I expect nothing resembling Christian from those who don’t believe. My frustration is aimed at those who do, and then treat yec’s as sophomoric morons, or devious, scheming, deceivers, and this just because they are yec’s. Perhaps you’ve missed this exchange that’s gone on for quite a while.
I agree. Debate should be polite and civil. But it should be debate. And intelligible. Rational and logically. I offered such to NH. He has declined. I could puff up and boast, but that proves nothing. Nothing to boast about. I’d rather have a victory than a forfeit. For others reading this, the offer extends.

A clarification, I referred to you as byrch because your word choice, when you choose to use caps and overall grammar are so similar that there is a high degree of probability that you are the same person. You admit you go by two names at times providing additional evidence that using pseudonyms is not something you are opposed to. You also say you have no idea who that is but you have said you have been watching me and refer to my comments on the ICR FB page which means you absolutely should know who Byrch is so your words and actions don’t add up.
I read hundreds of written homework assignments and assess cheating in my class all the time so I have a good sense for when one person is copying another persons work and this has all the signs. I don’t have proof and I’ll take your word for it that you are not the same person here but if you both handed me your work in class I would be reporting both of you to student judicial affairs for further investigation for suspicious activity.

again, i am not byrch, nor britches, nor batches. I am chuck. Only rarely, very rarely, do i use another title, and that would come about by my not changing it from different site to different site, ie. accidently forgetting which site i am on. But never in my life have i used byrch. That’s all i can say about it. You’ll have to do more research to find the mysterious byrch

Chuck, in the recent “bones of contention” post, I asked you to quote directly whatever you found to be insulting, blasphemous etc. You responded, saying all sorts of things, but without a single reference or quote to explain why you are going off on these tirades about how despicable Joel’s behavior is. I still haven’t seen what you are talking about, and I have found the treatment of YECs in these posts to be scrupulously fair and never insulting. As I pointed out, to criticize a view is a very different activity from attacking a person and anyone who has trouble differentiating between the two should seriously consider avoiding debates like the plague.

From what I’ve seen so far, all of the outrageous insults seem to be coming directly from your corner, and I can never seem to pin down exactly what is supposed to be inciting them. I’ll ask again; please quote what you find to be so insulting so that the rest of us can get an idea of where you are coming from. Or consider toning it down; I totally fail to see how Christ is being modeled in your words at this point.

there are none so blind as those who will not see. There are constant innuendos concerning the yec’s, “they aren’t experts” (without defining what an “expert” actually is). How many degrees do they have to have? You never say. Are they only an expert if YOU think they are? One doesn’t know. Comments about them “recycling the same old arguments” (like seriously, you’ve never seen evolutionists trot out all the same old arguments?). Them reacting too quickly to new published fossil discoveries, or being too suspicious ( gosh money, why would they be suspicious? Is it because of the volume of “new and revelatory, confirming discoveries that are trumpeted one day only to disappear into irrelevance a month or year later? The dozens of “missing link” proofs from the last couple of decades that are, of course, no longer missing link proofs. Castigating them because of their “narrow” worldview when it is terribly obvious that there has seldom been a scientific paradigm more narrow, closed, and easily threatened than the darwinian paradigm. Perhaps the reason you don’t see what i refer to is because you don’t want to, or perhaps such thoughts and expressions are normal for you and fit your paradigm comfortably. I’m not toning anything down. I’ll just assume you don’t see the hypocrisy and snugly comfortable attitudes. but i will call you on it. Your option is to block me. But of course NH would never do such a thing, being “he who was recently blocked” and his important voice stifled. Would he? My offer goes to you. Pick on someone your own size. And believe me when i tell, that person is me. Want to debate. set the parameters and topics. I’m not what you think of when you think of yec’s.Easy to pick on someone over the net, or when you know they are christian professionals and won’t indulge in your chicanery. Well, I am not, and I will. Like i said, i will be kind. Won’t a don’t cuss. Won’t call anyone names. Just sick of the picking on what you think are easy victims. Believe me, little one, I won’t be easy. Feel free to bring it on, or back out like NH.

Wow, that was fairly intense. Thank you for trying to take the time to point out what you find to be so insulting. The ones you have offered are fairly unconvincing I’m afraid. To call someone “not an expert” is not something vague, subjective and abusive, it just means that they do not have the requisite academic training (grad or post-grad) to be generally viewed as an expert by those who are themselves active scholars or scientist in their field and it also means that they are not active in peer-reviewed publishing or attending scientific conferences on that topic. There is nothing hurtful about that. If I walk around at a construction site pointing out what I think to be errors in the wiring or plumbing that they are installing, they would be right to ask if I was a certified electrician or plumber, and they would just be pointing out a basic truth if they followed up by stating that I wasn’t an expert and was not qualified to assess their work. If it hurts their or your feelings to have something like that pointed out, then they or you are always free to pursue further studies or actively publish and debate with scientific peers in established scientific venues after going through the training that would qualify you for this work. There are no shortcuts to acquiring expertise in any complex technical field.

“Recyclying the same old arguments” simply means that these have been brought forward repeatedly and that there are well-known responses to these arguments. If further efforts to advance these same arguments took these criticisms into account, then this wouldn’t be a recycling, it would be an advance in the dialogue. As it is, the same arguments continue to be advanced, frequently ignoring any past critiques, so; “recycling” it is. It’s not insulting; it just means reusing the same thing over again and is a neutral term, easily avoided where creationists listen to criticism and take it into account next time they discuss the subject. Your accusation that evolutionists do the same, whether or not it is true, is entirely beside the point; we are discussing whether it is an insult, not taking a survey of how widespread the practice is.

“Narrow”? Well, I don’t know, it could be an insult. Not sure since I don’t see any context. On the other hand, it could just be a description. Any endeavor that involves the routine dismissing of evidence (every single intermediate fossil for example) or whole fields of evidence (radiometric dating for example) that don’t corroborate a very defined and unyielding view of the world, history, everything can be fairly called narrow. That doesn’t mean it’s false, it just means it is very restricted and dismissive of anything beyond certain bounds. Do what you want with that, but you libel case is not standing on very much just yet. Do you have any real quotes or am I left to conclude that you tried hard, but you can’t find these insults and that you are just prone to taking things a wee bit personally.

Much of the rest of what you say is a bit of a rant and I find it difficult to get anything clear out of it. That said, I get very upset when people call my comfortable attitude “snugly”. There is nothing snugly about it and I resent any description that is better suited to a teddy bear. Ok in all seriousness, chuck, you seem to have a lot that is bottled up, and I’m glad you see the need to find places where you can vent without causing serious damage. I would suggest the comments sections in the NCSE blogs if this really needs to be the way you do it. Although I’m not sure whether this is still the case, they seem to have been a good place for anyone who is just raring for a knock down drag-out fight with evolutionists. All the best Chuck, and I hope you get a bit of peace some day.

Look, everyone here seems happy in their own deluded world. Not that you’re probably not just a group of nice but mislead people (excepting one or two). My hopes were to stir you, by whatever method, out of the cloud of self-delusion you dwell in. Now how, you may wonder, do I know that. Sure, thanks for asking. (1) Inability to see your own biases. This is evidenced by the constant denial that anyone is “insulting” said group, one’s “opponents”, if one will. This denial is often done while including further insults or derogatory comments. See CK’s post. The very thing I talk about, yet there is no acknowledgement of it. Everyone move along. Nothing to see here. (2) Constant derogatory comments about one’s opponents “education”. They’re not degreed. Oh, they are? Well they don’t have enough degrees. Oh, they have doctorates? Well, that doesn’t mean they are experts. It’s an endless regress. Nothing will ever be enough. (3) Your opponents are closed minded, afraid of the truth. That’s my favorite. It became my “mostest favorite” when NH decided to block my comments after wailing about his being blocked by ICR. Can anyone spell “hypocrite”. But perhaps, he acknowledges, he may have gone to far. Well, NH, that happens all the time when people think they have more power than others. You’re no different. You are JUST THE SAME. The same as “them”, you know, those knuckle draggers over at ICR. But you probably don’t see that. You didn’t block my posts because of cursing or threats, you blocked them because I was pointing out two posts that did exactly what I accused this site of, but rather than be a man a say “Darn chuck, you were right. I might have to ask for a toning down a bit from my fellow bloggers. We really don’t need to do that. We should take the high road. Yes NH, something like that. And if you want to post my last comment, you go right ahead. Just be a man and make sure you post your comments to me that triggered that reaction, the one with the false accusations and insinuations. If you are man enough to post your comments to me, then feel free to post mine to you. Otherwise, well, whatever. You’ll do what makes you look best, I am sure.
I would love to debate you, or anyone else. An actual debate, by actual debate rules, if anyone is familiar with them. But I certainly am not going to debate someone who can delete or alter things that I have said. We would need to find a neutral site, if such a thing exists. Until then, feel free, and yes, all “snugly” on this site. Continue to ridicule those who disagree with you. And to those who post here and claim to be Christian (many still chose to remain vague, or anonymous) I will say it one last time, and this one from the lips of the savior, “it would be better if a millstone was hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea” than for you to be a stumbling block to one of these (those who follow Christ). So if your “brethren” at icr, aig, you think to be slow, or ignorant, try to keep in mind that they are trying to honor their savior as best they know how. And my question to you is, how do you serve them by mocking them?

thank you mega, for proving my point. If the ONLY insults you have seen here are mine, either your reading skills are terribly poor, or more to the point, you see what you want and ignore what you don’t want to see. If you saw no insults in CK’s post for example, then I’ll point you back to what I just said. Cloud. Delusion. These are symptomatic of a condition. I would imagine you and others practice the same thing when you read others post on a scientific topic where you disagree. Skip what you can’t handle or don’t like, see what you read into it. Seriously, no insults but mine. All these posts. Here’s some help for you. Look up the meaning of insult. No, really, do it. A good dictionary that gives all the ways an insult can be made. No, don’t bother. You know exactly what an insult is. And a lie is a good place to start. Don’t see any other insults. Heh-heh. You’re in good company, mega. Blind leading the blind. Cool thing though dude, is if you pretend you don’t see anything wrong, you can use plausible denial as an excuse for not dealing with it. Now, last chance. Read CK’s post from June 8. Here, i’ll help you. “oh you scribes and Pharisees” (that would be from the bible, and is a pejorative statement in his comment), “controlling all interpretations of Scriptures” (how does one control ALL interpretations)”, “falsifying all reports that do not favor them” (again, what incredible power), “they hire liars to insult and demean those who do not agree with them”(and on their small budget, my aren’t they frugal). “throw honest believers under the bus” (I think I can safely say that mean that THEY are not honest, and besides, whose gonna clean up the mess). And my favorite, “bring derision on our faith”. Why would they need to, CK is doing such a good job. Why? He ask. Finally he says something Christian, “sin nature”. Not HIS, of course. Theirs. His, apparently, was nowhere to be seen in that statement. And there’s the big difference between CK and I. I have made it abundantly clear on this site that I share the same peccadillos, both large and small, as everyone else on this site. I think that has been apparent. Same tendency to see through a paradigm as anyone else. What has angered me is those, such as CK, who get off, whether quietly or in his or her case loudly, on bashing other Christians and then questioning THEIR faith, or THEIR sincerety.
And perhaps I read past it, I’ve looked for it twice now, but there was a phrase I used in response to NH that has DISAPPEARED from a post. Oh my goodness, could someone be practicing censorship on such an open site. But maybe I missed it. It was good. I said that one way to care less about your opponent is to caricaturize and dehumanize them. That gives apparent justification for cruelty and perhaps even lies. Then I said I wished that tendency had died with Hitler. Anyone find that offensive? Good. Then stop it. It never leads anywhere good, much less the simple exchange of truth most of your pretend to want. But I know better. And so do you. Anyone reading this who isn’t a Christian understands only some of what I am saying. Those who claim to be Christian, and this I would assume include CK, well, hope you asked for forgiveness. And no, I don’t expect widespread apologies and repentence. If Jesus had waited for those (no, I’m not Jesus but I’m sure someone would say I think I am) two things, well, He’d still be waiting, and yet to hang on the cross for our sins. I’ve gotten nothing from NH, and mega, I doubt i’ll get one from you for your falsehood . But do tell me if you really don’t see any insults other than from me here, including yourself. I’ll pray for you if you would like. God can restore sight to the blind.
And to money,mega, NH, tell you what. I will provide exact substantiation of my claim that over 60 percent of jesus’s REFERENCES to the old testament were from Genesis. On one condition. After I do, you will publically acknowledge, here, on this site, that you were wrong. I will take the time to list everything for you, if you can be man enough to acknowledge your error. Or should I take all that time and just expect some wriggling from you in order to avoid such a catastrophic experience. Even after all the false accusations and lies you’ve made in reference to me, I’m still willing to educate you further. You let me know if you are man enough to own up, and I will print information anyone can verify as per this point. You let me know, hear? And mega, sshhh, such a joker. No insults. Makes me laugh.

“And perhaps I read past it, I’ve looked for it twice now, but there was a phrase I used in response to NH that has DISAPPEARED from a post.”
I have never altered anyone’s comments without them asking me too (usually a grammatical error that I am asked to fix for them. Perhaps what you are looking for is in the responses you sent me that I haven’t posted. I can post those if you like.

Hi Chuck, please read what I said before. I was very clear about what I posted and what I didn’t. I also said, I would be happy to post your messages that you sent to be after I said I wouldn’t post any more of them. That offer still stands but you haven’t said you want them posted. I am in no way censoring you, since I have said that I would post them but I thought it would be polite to ask you first if you really wanted them posted.

It doesn’t matter Joel. Nothing to see here. Everyone just move along. Everyone has made up their minds about it. More words won’t fix a thing. I do regret how this ended, and I regret my anger, but fella, you just don’t trash someone without getting a reaction. You could’ve insulted my intelligence, athletic ability, spelling skills, even my heritage, but when you hit character, you just went one bridge too far. Then your decision to stop posting my responses sent me over the edge. It came across as, let’s see, I believe you all call it cyberbullying. Money is all crying upset about my “threat of violence” (duck down from the screen, here comes a cyber fist!!!). What silliness. He thinks I haven’t answered his questions? What questions? I do know how he feels, though, cause no one answers mine. Your decision not to apologize or even acknowledge what you said if obviously your choice to make. Perhaps you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge either. If that’s the case, there’s no point I can make to convince you otherwise. If you are comfortable with what you did, then fine. Your opinion is the most important, I imagine. Just remember the words of Christ when he said “when you go to make your offering and you remember that there is an issue between you and a brother, immediately go to your brother and make amends before making your offering”. A very slight paraphrase. Now, so that I don’t have that on my head, I acknowledge to you that I got quite angry at what you said and did. Angrier than I should have. Too angry, in fact. And I admit that my attempts to get you to apologize was at least in part motivated by my wanting it to be easier to forgive you. But that failed, and maybe it should have. I doubt God would want to make forgiveness easy (kinda brings the cross to mind, doesn’t it). So, other opinions aside, and I say quite softly that they are irrelevant, totally, I ask you to forgive me my anger. I forgive you your untruths and accusations.
At another time we might have had stimulating and challenging conversations, but not here, not on this sight, not with these kind of people (trevor exempted). He says he enjoys talking with you guys and has decided to just live with the rest. That’s fine and I commend him for it. For where he’s at in life this may be a perfect place. For me, no. I can’t stand the condescending and can’t abide the attacks. If you, all of you, could understand that it’s the very cause of why you’re over here and “they” are over there, over any issue. Political, religious. Why people can’t just lay the verbal weapons down and determine to talk, no matter how difficult, and to convey love and respect if nothing else, I just don’t get it. Because the alternative, what we see everywhere, and here, is obvious. You have oec’s here, with an occasional yec dropping in, they have yec’s over there, with an occasional oec dropping in, but even then, how many “drop in” to talk, and how many to attack. That’s all I ever asked all of you to do. Stop attacking. The sides will never talk until the attacking stops. And the responsibility rests with you. Before God you are accountable for YOUR actions, not theirs. So start something. Make a place where both sides feel welcome. And if the unwelcome drop in (insert my picture here), well, just keep doing the right thing and they will eventually feel uncomfortable and go.
Again, I ask forgiveness for my anger. Whether justified or not, it wasn’t required that I feel that way. Just my flesh. I forgive you for what you said and did, whether you want it or not or receive it. That IS required. For the rest of you, I don’t care what you think. That was never part of it. This was between Joel and I. Trevor, you’re a good chap. And a fellow YEC’er, altho I’ve said several times that I was a YEC/OUC, and no one even asked what that is. Forest for the trees I guess. Take care Joel. et.al.

Although I completely disavow Chuck’s tone, anger and insults (especially the “father of lies” bit for Pete sake), I do understand why he is frustrated; unfortunately his vitriol has made it hard for his audience to hear what he is saying. Chuck pointed out one specific comment on this particular post that, I think, somewhat embodies the issue. I’ve copied the comment here from CK.

To borrow a phrase: “Oh, ye scribes and pharisees”. Then, as now, there is a professional group that seems dedicated to tying up God’s Word, and keeping it to themselves. The YEC groups are about like that, controlling the interpretations of Scripture and falsifying all reports that do not favor them. Then, as now, they hire liars to insult and demean those not of their own camp. And, then, as now, they throw honest believers under the bus (or, chariot) and bring derision upon our Faith. Why? Same old fallen nature.

I suppose there’s nothing morally wrong with CK’s comment, and I understand the need to vent to like-minded people. But as a YEC, its frustrating to have my whole community broadly painted as biased employers of liars who close their ears to reason, which certainly appears to be the take home message in that comment.

Here’s my humble assessment of the field as it stands (a view from 10,000 feet), and where it should go. Both the YEC and non-YEC communities (sorry for the super broad categories) are comprised of individuals along a spectrum of education, bias and reasonableness. I don’t believe we are dealing with a reality in which YECs are uninformed and biased while non-YECs are well-studied and objective. Rather, there are two heterogeneous groups that both contain a mix of biased and objective people, and that both contain educated and uneducated people.

With this in mind, I think what Chuck is lashing out against is the notion that the YEC perspective is a monolith of know-nothings and hand wavers when in reality there are elements that fit that description in both parties. Actually there are a lot of similarities (both good and bad) between the two camps. This week, for example, Chuck has demonstrated that the YECs have angry people who call their opponents the son of Satan; similarly about eight months ago, a guy on this very blog going by the name “Oogity Boogity” called me a “cretinous Dark Ages imbecile” and told me to shut my “pie hole.” I disavowed Chuck’s comments, and to their credit, Joel and other commenters disavowed Oogity Boogity’s. Every unfortunate and redeeming aspect alike of one community is mirrored on the other side, so I don’t believe it does any good to draw battle lines based on who says the meanest things, who is more ignorant or who blocks their opponents more often on FB; both sides are guilty. We should draw our distinctions based on science, philosophy and reason and we should use those same tools to communicate.

These are my opinions, of course. I’d appreciate hearing other thoughts.

Trevor, I am surprised yet gladdened that someone here knows an insult here when they see it. I am disappointed that you chose to focus on the “Pharisee” part of the entry and not “hire liars” and “throw under the bus” portions. Perhaps being too kind? And for your info, NH and I were involved in a private discourse, some of which he chose to publish WITHOUT posting his own comments. So if they seem a bit extreme, well, they were, but aimed primarily at NH.

Not true, I didn’t publish anything you or I said after I said I would’t post your comments. If you would like me to post your comments I can do so. The ones I posted were all ones that your wrote before I said I would no longer post your comments so those words you intended the world to hear.

my explanation to trevor was before I realized you had published our exchange. Nothing more that an anachronism. No conspiracy. ICR didn’t do it. A question though. Who blocked out your name on the meme you posted. You or them?

Neither are my name since I took that screenshot after my comments had been removed. Did you really think one of those comments was mind:-) I blocked the names since I made the screenshot and it included other comments.

I agree with what Trevor said on the whole. There is a spectrum when it comes to both bias and education on both sides. I’ve seen some pretty awful, biased and ignorant comments coming from those who support evolution, often without even understanding it. The internet is a great place to observe the whole spectrum, educated to ignorant, fair and polite to amazingly rude and callous. I don’t think this is a revelation to any of us and I doubt that any of us is suggesting that anyone is well educated and fair just by virtue of the fact that they agree with our own position. I really don’t think everything is equal on both sides and that both sides are guilty of the same excesses or weaknesses to the same extent, but on the other hand, I fully agree that it is unwarranted to treat each side like it is uniformly rude or polite, arrogant or humble, educated or ignorant.

Chuck’s comments, as he has gone on to point out, were designed to “stir [us], by whatever method, out of the cloud of self-delusion [we] dwell in”. This seems to be exactly the thinking that he has been comfortable using to explain to himself why it was ok to exaggerate the claims of others (“knuckle draggers”?! Seriously?) and why it is completely acceptable to communicate in a manner that would be completely out of bounds in almost any adult context (“your fawning lemmings just say “duh-huh, duh-huh” and clap along with you”). That is his business, and it is not to any of us that he will ultimately need to justify his behavior.

As to blocking and hypocrisy Chuck, Joel has made it quite clear why your comments were not being posted (though he has obviously let you go ahead all the same). Not because you were some polite, thoughtful gadfly, but because you have been straight up rude. From what I can see, YECs who are polite while offering sustained criticism are allowed to post all they want here. He has been careful to point out that his critique was polite and entirely within the guidelines at ICR, yet he has been thrown out where rude but ignorant atheists are allowed to continue their rants, in complete opposition to the stated guidelines. You on the other hand have continued to be rude and yet here you are. For this reason, the word “hypocrisy” seems not to apply here, especially when the accusation is made by someone who has been rudely making a plea for politeness and unfairly misdirecting a plea for fairness.

I don’t understand your whole “education” thing. There is no moving-goalpost progression. You were upset when certain YECs were being labeled as “not experts” in the field that they were criticizing. I pointed out what is meant by expert and that such accusations have been completely accurate and well supported when Joel has made this point. That’s it. That’s the progression. It didn’t start with “only a high school education”. It started with “not an expert”. You seemed confused about what this meant, and I thought I clarified. An expert, especially in the sciences, is a qualified and active contributor to the field, not an unqualified outsider who is not participating in any of the scientific debates with other experts in any recognized scientific forum. Now you sort of seem to be making things up with this whole endless regress, summarizing a conversation that we never had. I’ve seen people make up hypothetical facts when their case gets weak (“but if we did find this kind of evidence…”) and now you seem to be inventing a whole dialogue (not in the conditional either). I don’t get it.

I agree that CK’s comments are not helpful and that while they may characterize some YECs, they certainly don’t characterize all. I would probably want to use a different set of words to characterize the lower spectrum of trolling evolutionists, but I don’t think I would want to be any nicer about them. That said, Chuck was obviously directing nearly all of his comments against Joel, and it was these comments (I think I made this clear) that I was finding to be extremely out of place. I am finding Joel’s critiques to be polite and usually fair, and I find that Chuck has been rude, arrogant and unfair as a direct response. If he didn’t like what CK said, then he should have directed his comments to CK. He did not. And the only point I really had to make here is in response to that fact so please don’t confuse this with some sweeping defense of all comments by all evolutionists since 1859.

You prove my point. Joel? lied. Liar. Made false accusations. False accuser. Weaver of lies. He talked to no one who even knows me, so I doubt not he couldn’t find anyone to “verify” my character. What trope. So he “might have gone to far”? Is that an apology? To whom? Would “i might have killed that person” actually convict anyone in a court of law? Might have or perhaps do not equal an admission of guilt. Perhaps Joel, and you and others, feel safety behind the imaginary firewalls of the internet. Let me assure you, if you or Joel had made such accusations to my face, you would have immediately felt the consequences. Instead, you hide behind high sounding language and use linguistics to pretend you really didn’t say such and such. Why question someone’s educational accomplishments when in reality nothing they could achieve or no acclaim they may have earned will move you towards agreement with them. And perhaps, from now on, as a help for you, always say “not all yec’s, but some” that way blanket statements can be avoided.
So Joel is above board and polite. He’s a liar and deceiver, but quite above board and polite. Well goodness, please forgive me. If I had known he was polite, I wouldn’t have become near as upset by his lies and false accusations. Please forgive me, I “perhaps went too far”. And now that I think of it, “quagmire” is NOT a name I have ever used to post. Whenever I used that name, it has always been accompanied by additional letters and numbers. So unless he shows me my supposed post, I don’t think that it is mine. I certainly find it no where on this site. And I have posted only on Naturalis Historian for the past few months. Before that I posted on a biblical language website. That’s it. I’ve never just used quagmire without addendums. Seeing as how quagmire is a family guy character, others probably use it as well.
So I am glad you can be so focused as to scrutinize every supposed error of mine but excuse Joel’s as just polite and high handed exchange. Again, blind and hypocritical.

“And now that I think of it, “quagmire” is NOT a name I have ever used to post. Whenever I used that name, it has always been accompanied by additional letters and numbers.” Hi Chuck, in response to Trevor you posted as “Quagmire123” and that was linked to the same email address as “chuck”. Did I need to put the 123 on the end so everyone would know I who I was referring to? I thought it was pretty obvious. You even said in an earlier comment that you have posted under two names. I will be careful to type quagmire123 in the future so everyone isn’t completely confused.

Hi Chuck, yes I know an insult when I see it. I’ve read the same posts on this blog that you have for months, and I’ve contributed to a number of the same discussions that you have. So I’ve seen what you’ve seen. You may recall that I’ve been vocal in a number of those conversations trying to get certain YEC bashers to stay on topic and dispense with the personal attacks. And its because I know an insult when I see one that I want to ask the same thing from you. Please hear me as a friend who shares some of your same concerns and perspectives. You’ve made your point. There have been a number of generous ears that have heard you out although they don’t feel they have personally offended you. Unfortunately those that really have offended you probably stopped listening awhile ago. I think the reasonable people on this blog will all agree that both sides of this debate have contributed to the caustic environment, and the only way to have successful dialogue is to move forward and forget the past. I know you have ideas of substance and you would like to contribute to meaningful conversation. I think we all do. What will it take for you to bury the hatchet so we can pursue those substantive discussions?

Wow, and I mean this sincerely, what a breath of fresh air. Am I still on the same site. Your statement contains more honesty and good intentions than all the rest together, and that includes me. This has been an on going struggle here for many weeks. Like you, I would enjoy nothing better than a free flow of ideas, a level, honest, and fair exchange of thoughts. I just get sick of the “us versus the yec” nonsense that passes for deep thought. “They do this”. They do that. They lie. They’re tricky. They cherry-pick data. Blah blah blah. I’ve seen these people in debate. Yes, they go to debates and take on anyone who is willing. They are not afraid of honest, civil debate. You know, what we don’t find here. It’s just a cowardly thing to do. And it’s a lie. And if they block someone on their site, so what. Joel was doing it to me. I could be wrong, but I think he changed his mind because he thought doing so would make him look better. Or the better of us two.
I also tire of the dodging. Joel accuses an icr meme of being incorrect. I do the research and guess what, it’s exactly right. Understood according to what they “actually” said, it was spot on. I report this, and guess what. “list all the verses”, “list all the references”, etc. etc. My question is, before accusing them of being wrong, did anyone actually do any research? I was able to verify that it was correct in just a little over five minutes. Joel could have done the same, if he wanted to. I doubt I’m any smarter than he is. I do doubt he really wanted to find out they were correct. Now that he has exposed himself, I doubt he will admit it and apologize. I have offered to give him all the appropriate information. I will do all the work and all the typing, and all he has to do is to admit he is wrong and apologize. That’s it. A simple admission and apology. Don’t hold your breath Trevor. There will undoubtedly be some excuse to wriggle out of it.
As for burying the hatchet. I’ll be glad to when Joel removes the one he stuck so cowardly in my back. Maybe he’s from a generation where that’s an acceptable thing to do. I am not. He lied about me and made stuff up. When he admits it and apologizes, I’m more then willing to let bygones be bygones. We all make mistakes, even purposeful and malicious ones. But my description of him stands until he gives reason to remove it. I fear, though, you are right. Those who don’t want to listen are probably still not listening. One can only hope.
Again, thank you for the most honest, frank, posting I have seen here. Clearly sincere and levelheaded. If you find a place where people can have honest civil conversation without the belittling or lying about others, please let me know. I fear they don’t even exist. Wishing you the best.

Chuck, I’m glad you appreciated the comment. I was letting you know that I understand and appreciate your position, and that I think there’s a scope for moving forward in civility; but I was not detracting from this blog. This is the place that I have found to be the best conversation around. I disagree with most people here on most issues of science, but I have nonetheless been enriched by their ideas, and I’ve learned a great deal, too. Sure, I’ve listened to varying degrees of frustrating comments about YECs, but that’s actually been a small price to pay for the intelligent, conversation, which is more abundant than the frustrating sort.

Joel and I have *strongly* disagreed, but he has never personally attacked or offended me or any other commenter as far as I’ve seen. He’s even been willing to moderate his words on occasions when I’ve confronted him. Approved Money Changers (AMC) has also been a delight to talk to. Although I suppose we pretty much agree on tone and charity and not so much on substance, AMC has helped me see weaknesses in my arguments while honestly considering the valid points that I do make.

Based on my experience here, I’d be willing to bet that any offense that you’ve felt from Joel in particular was probably a misunderstanding. And if you can rise above the basal derision from others that is, on both sides of the debate, somewhat normative, then I think you’ll find this to be a pretty great place for discussion. I hope you’ll consider letting the issue rest even if you don’t get an admission or apology. There is much for both sides to discuss, and I would appreciate some YEC company.

and I would love to provide that company to you, if I thought there was a better chance of someone listening then there is for non-living matter suddenly coming to life. I am glad you can fit in. Perhaps my age is the barrier. Been chattering and debating for over decades, when not teaching, and can tell you the odds of someone changing their minds are close to nothing. I don’t doubt that you can benefit under the right circumstances, but a well written book of several hundred pages can inform you far better, and quicker, with little to no chance of insults incurred. But you like it here, so enjoy. Glad you are a YEC. As you know, so am I. but I am also OUC. Posted it here several times. No one even bothered to ask what that was. I know of no one else using those letters on the web. Didn’t get a peep. When people think that they’ve got you pegged, they forget to notice the little stuff. Again, thanks for the good words. And be strong. Stay true. Blessings.

Chuck, based on the last post you directed to me, I’ve completely lost interest in hearing your answers to my repeated questions or in hearing justifications for your behavior. You have now moved on to what appears to be threats of physical violence (“if you or Joel had made such accusations to my face, you would have immediately felt the consequences”) and I would personally suggest that you should be banned from the site on that basis alone. You have exhausted all goodwill here and I would be very surprised if this was the first venue where that has occurred. In spite of Joel’s scrupulous handling of your insulting behavior, Trevor’s charitable reading of your motives and my own efforts to understand exactly what is inciting these outbursts, you have proven to be a graceless and bullying dialogue partner, and I think everyone will breathe a little better without your vitriol. I look forward to more meaningful discussions here in the future, but I think not with you. May God give you peace.

You got one thing right. Trevor. The rest is you just ignoring reality. You don’t like me. I don’t like you. And yes, money, if you came up to my face and lied about me and accused me like Joel did, we would exchange more than words. What would you do if someone did it to you. Cry? Run away? Do you have any self worth. Any integrity. You know exactly what Joel said and did, and you know, you don’t care. You know, you just don’t care. Cause Joel’s your buddy. Scrupulous handling. Right. Lie. Accuse. Deny. Pretend, Avoid. Dodge. Joel can block me any time for any reason. He doesn’t even need one. And life will go on for us all. I’ve already got peace, money, and it doesn’t come from a liar or accuser. Does yours? Oopps. Was that insulting. A site of cyberbullies, who make themselves feel better by accusing others of the same. I get great peace from knowing that one day you will bend the knee, and you will acknowledge the Truth. May you find Peace before then.

Chuck, AMC is not bullying you. He really has tried hard to understand what specific offense you are referring to. Since we share some common perspectives I’ve tried to help people on this blog hear and understand your points. But you’re about to wear through everyone’s patience; and I’ll be honest, if you double down on any more violent sentiments, you’ll wear through mine as well. Is it more important to you to be vindicated on this issue, or to have the opportunity to continue commenting here on future posts? It doesn’t look like you’re going to get to do both. I want to see you make the right choice.

Trevor, a bit puzzled by your tone on your post at 10:07, especially in light of my post to joel at 9:34 and you at 9:37. Did you not see these? Or were they not enough? While, as I think my posts reveal, don’t want this to end in a hate-fest, my life will be just fine thank you, here or not. As the only person who has issued anything remotely resembling an apology, though not the only one with sinful thoughts, words, or attitudes, just what is it you are expecting from me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If your response was made after reading my last two posts, then obviously we have little to nothing in common. If you haven’t read them, then I understand. A little. Don’t worry bout your friends though, I won’t expect you to exhort them as you did me. Your reasons are your own. Wish you the best. Really. “A tree is known by it’s fruit”.

Hi Chuck, yes I posted that last comment before I read your posts to Joel and me. My 10:07 post was in response to your 9:04 comment in which you referenced cyber bullying and alluded to exchanging punches. I guess you had a change of heart before I posted my comment, so this is another one of those anachronisms you mentioned earlier. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I appreciate your humble apology to Joel.

As to exhorting the others as I have you, I’ve actually done that a number of times in other cases. I can think of maybe four people that I directly confronted about impugning a YEC’s character without cause or leveling ad hominem attacks. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve confronted Joel a couple of times; he didn’t see my perspective one of the times, but the other time he did and even modified his post accordingly. I challenged you in a similar way because morality cares nothing for alliances; in other words if I’m going to call out a OEC, then I need to call out a YEC (or even a YEC/OUC) for similar behavior. AMC has also let me know a time or two when I’ve personally overstated a case or otherwise spoken out of turn. I think its simply something we all have to do regardless of which side we’re on.

As to this particular issue and in total honesty, I simply can’t find anything on this post where Joel misrepresented you. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I just can’t find it, so I can’t very well call Joel out. And I also don’t agree that AMC did anything wrong.

Anyway, I hope we’ve come to an understanding. Thanks for doing the right thing. I wish you the best as well.

Trevor old chap, I would love help you, but NH’s comment is gone. Though there are a purported 68 comments on this blog, only 66 are showing. Are there older pages? Can I go further back. Either way, a significant comment by Joel is no longer there. I’m not saying he’s hiding it. Perhaps he removed it for now, or accidently erased it. But believe me, it was here. I started noticing a couple of days ago I couldn’t find it cause I wanted to quote from it, with everyone saying “what’s this nutcase so upset about”. When I didn’t I just assumed I zipped by it. But he made it, and it was there a day or two. Maybe it’s stashed somewhere with one of mine.
Hate to open old wounds, but you asked. so here goes (he refers to me as birch). He thinks i’m playing around I guess, trying to post under various names. You can see his reference to it above with another person saying they don’t think we’re the same person. And he is right.
Joel claims I have been banned on other sites. This is untrue. It’s never happened, though there have been sites I would have counted it an honor to be banned from. Never ever banned.
He claims I’ve even been banned even on YEC sites. This is totally untrue. Besides, i’m a yec/ouc. Quite friendly to them. No need to ban someone on your side. But truthfully, other than trying to find Joels comment when he said icr blocked him, that was the first time I’ve ever been to icr’s facebook page. And I’ve never blogged on a yec site. Those are lies.
Joel claims he could find no one to vouch for me. What this could even mean I don’t know. No one knows who I am on the internet. I’ve made sure to protect my personal id and info, even use a shadow fb page. These days you can’t be too sure. There was no one he could talk to who would have any idea who I really am or anything personal about me. Now perhaps he talked to someone who knew someone who talked to someone who thought he heard about someone who knew a chuck guy who was a jerk, but they weren’t talking about me, tho I am a “chuck”, one of say, a million or so on the internet.
Anyone, sorry to dredge it up but those were the words and statements he made. Why I can’t find the comment (one of two missing?) I don’t know. Again, maybe for space some eventually disappear, I don’t know. He made them within a day or so of the reactions of mine that were so virulent. That’s why I called him a coward (and again, I’ve asked forgiveness for that) for blocking me right after posting those comments I refer to. I felt like I was being denied the right to defend myself. Now that I see that his comments are gone, I guess I now understand why you all were scratching your head going WTH?
Even so, you may feel those comments are harmless, the kind of thing that gets slung around on the web all the time. And that’s the problem. The web makes it “too” safe to do that. Now you know money why I made the comment about saying it face to face. I think I understand your incredulity and even anger.
So Trevor, there you go. The comment is gone. Joel may still have it available and could publish it to clear the air. I don’t care. I’m over and done with it. But the good Lord in heaven knows those comments were made. That will always be true, whether they “show up” or not. I’d rather not think they were purposefully removed or hidden, and again, maybe i’m just too stupid to know where to look, but if you did Joel, i’ll forgive you for that too. Be safe Trevor, my good man..

Oh i forgot. Your loose usage of the Lord’s name would be considered blasphemy in orthodox christian circles. Perhaps that’s why stopped you. They don’t mind you making or poking fun at them. You’ll forgive them for caring more for the Lord’s name then you do. Again, if you’re not really a christian then i understand your behavior.

To borrow a phrase: “Oh, ye scribes and pharisees”. Then, as now, there is a professional group that seems dedicated to tying up God’s Word, and keeping it to themselves.
The YEC groups are about like that, controlling the interpretations of Scripture and falsifying all reports that do not favor them. Then, as now, they hire liars to insult and demean those not of their own camp.
And, then, as now, they throw honest believers under the bus (or, chariot) and bring derision upon our Faith. Why? Same old fallen nature.

Here you go NH, Money, etc. Read CK’s post. And note the following words “scribes, pharisees (i’m sure not in a positive vein) tying up God’s word, keeping it to themselves, falsifying all reports, they hire liars to insult,demean, throw honest believers under the bus”. CAN YOU SEE ME NOW. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW. Oh chuck, we don’t do that here. Where in the world do you see these negative words or accusations. DUHHHHHHH. We’s don’t not sees nuttin’. Blind hypocrites. May God have mercy on your sorry souls. We just want to exchange info, chuck, have a dialogue. What a load of crap. Tell it to the evil one. He’s the father of lies. Your dad.

To Chuck, Quagmire, I will happily accept your challenge to debate on evolution, following your guidelines. If you look at my blog, thebookofworks.com you will find several posts related to evolution which should provide some material for you. I am looking forward to it.

well goodness NH, why use an old retread. Start a new blog. Invite others to watch. As an old yec’er, you know, marginlized, cutoff, soon to be extinct, desperately in need of you to lead me back to the savior after icr et.al. collapses, start a new one. Just you and me, invite all your friends. Be the good christian. Educate the masses, Rescue them from darkness. The more the merrier. I await your response with baited breath.

I’m betting – though I’ve yet to read your post – that they did not even give a ‘reason’ for blocking you. Because they don’t have a valid reason other than “this person is questioning ‘creation science'” or “this person is not upholding the Bible the same way that we do”.

It would help to read the article before commenting. They don’t have to have a reason. They can ban anyone anytime. They are well within their rights to do so and it would be very unsuall for anyone to every announce why they have banned someone on FB. I would not expect to recieve an explanation. It isn’t that big of a deal for me. I have plenty of things I should be doing with my time rather than commenting there and so providentially they have directed my efforts elsewhere which hopefully will be more productive.

Just now when I tried to access the ICR Facebook page to see what Lisle was saying I could not do so. I received the on-screen message “Sorry, this content isn’t available at the moment
The link you followed may have expired, or the Page may only be visible to an audience that you aren’t in.”

I’ve decided to go ahead and publish quagmire/chuck’s responses except the ones he made to me after I said I wouldn’t publish his responses. I apologize for going to far in some of my comments. I will give chuck one more chance to abide by my rules since I have reacted to quickly. I would be happy to publish his responses to my last comment but he might not want me to since he might have thought that they would not be published. But please tell me to do so and I would be happy to. I would request that if any commenters which to engage in debate that is far-afield from the article above that they make arrangements to do so elsewhere. Also, I will be out of time with very sporadic time to check the blog for almost a month.

Chuck the Bloviater. Its getting old reading your posts. Telling everyone to be kind and considerate and you yourself cant get out of the sandbox. You continually question peoples Christianity when they challenge you. Your delusions of thinking you are winning the debate is ludicrous. Actually Laughable. I for one will skip your post. It wont matter what you name yourself because your incoherent post are self evident.

oh jon baby, thanks for the contribution. Man, you sure know how to weave those words. You’ve said more with those few words than………….than…………..no one. No one asked you your opinion. I know I didn’t. And you probably didn’t even notice your own bloviating. But spend a few more seconds with you than you deserve, I only doubt someone’s faith (1) when they claim to have one and (2) when they attack other people of faith’s intelligence because they have the temerity to disagree. And of course, I get pissed when someone lies about me or falsely accuses me. Now go away.

I’m afraid so. Given how the latest presidential election is going, a lot of us are considering reclaiming the colony for your own good. To be honest, I suspect a lot of Americans would prefer that to either Trump or Hillary.

is that even an option, cause I will pay for the flight. England has to have better choices then we have. Heck mega , I’d vote for you. Need a vp candidate? I will start a fund it site for you. Just let me know.

That was good Christine.The humor was in response to a quote chuck made that completely contradicts his response to me on previous post. Apparently that went over his head. Ego can be very distracting at times.

OK, Got it. I am new to this and my expectation (maybe Hope) is that the conversations be more focused on the Blog at hand. I believe the dialog will be more productive.
Having said that ,I will reset and try harder from now on to do the same.

It’s impressive how much dissenting opinion folks at ICR or AIG manage to censor without their followers noticing. It really highlights that the general public has little sense of what working in science is actually like, with all the rigors of peer review formally for publishing, and less formally when presenting findings at a conference and potentially having your work torn apart in person for being shabby.

well, at least we know that their schedules aren’t full with invites. And it’s good to know someone is willing to share. Of course, Copernicus didn’t convince the Ptolemists at first, nor were the Newtonians convinced by Einstein, nor was Einstein convinced by Hoyle or quantum physics at first. So sometimes it just takes an open mind to consider the possibility that another paradigm has something to offer. It’s happened dozens of times throughout the history of science, and I don’t doubt that it will happen another dozen times in the future. If your paradigm isn’t falsifiable, then there’s a good chance it might be false. Even Robert Jastrow, eminent cosmologist, and an agnostic, said with irony that scientists will continue to struggle to achieve the summit of knowledge “only to find that the theologians have been sitting there for centuries. I only encourage you to always test your worldview, lest both the world and the “view” pass you by.

Larry Vardiman, director of the RATE project, has spoken publicly about the 2003 American Geophysical Union meeting that Stem Cell Monk has referenced. He recounted that there were many geophysicists in attendance that wanted nothing to do with their presentations at poster sessions, but that there were also many others who were not only interested in discussing the RATE project’s data, but also replicated some of it in their own labs. Vardamin’s public discussion was in 2009, at which time none of the replicated results that he referenced had been published and likely still haven’t been (and may never be). Nonetheless, the idea that the data are not convincing is inaccurate. Perhaps they haven’t convinced the whole field, but the ideas themselves are purportedly quite convincing and reproducible in the hands of some mainstream experts and scientists.

Your points are well made Trevor. Many evolutionists are in denial when it comes to the supposed “open mind” that mythically prevails in science. I would be astonished, especially after following this debate for over four decades, to actually see an evolutionary conference where creationists or even ID proponents were eagerly and openly invited to exchange info and theories. There’s a long list of individuals who have lost their livelihoods merely by discussing such taboo subjects (for example, Coppidge at NASA who lost his job (he was there nine years) for simply offering anyone interested the opportunity to view a tape that was favorable to ID concepts. There was no mention of God, or religious believe, anywhere on the tape. The female employee who complained later admitted in court she hadn’t actually watched the tape (this means she took it freely) but fast forwarded after the first five minutes when she became disturbed by the “religious implications”. Or perhaps the professor at Ball State, who finally received tenure, after almost losing his job, and possible tenure, by simply allowing students, in a class that studied the history of science and differing viewpoints, to discuss ANY view as long as the focus was scientific or related to changes in field of scientific studies. No one view was promulgated, no religious views were favored, just discussing ALL the ways that science was done or viewed. Upon investigation, ALL students, EVERY SINGLE ONE, spoke favorably of the professor and were robust in their praise of said class and how it enabled them to understand how people process viewpoints, especially science. All enjoyed it, not one, even from previous years, had a single complaint about the class. Fortunately, the professor was cleared and has now achieved tenure.
It’s just a shame that so many have drunk the Kool-Aid. And no one here, apparently, even seems fazed by or willing to acknowledge these type of events. And I can give you so many more. But it won’t matter. The important thing is to believe whatever is the consensus is and to brook no deviation from it. They don’t seem to realize how little progress science would have made if no one was willing to rock the boat and think outside the box. But I appreciate your kind and patient persistence. I applaud you for it.

When creationists and IDers are prepared to be held to the same standards as scientists — that is to present falsifiable hypotheses about specific predictions of creation and/or ID (not just complaints that evolution “can’t explain everything”), backed up by quantitative data, then they should be considered as equal players. Journals adhere to an “evidence paradigm”, as you might say.

People only get “invited” to scientific conferences as keynote speakers, who have scientific contributions to present. There is nothing preventing creationists from attending scientific conferences, but I do not see any evidence that they do so.

nor, I assume, do you have any evidence that they don’t. attend, that is. I thought perhaps someone had read an article titled “evolutionists decry absence of creationists from conferences”, or perhaps “evolution journals mourn dearth of creationist contributions”, you know, something like that. As long as one group gets to decide what is and isn’t science, or scientific enough, I imagine that only those who adhere to an arbitrary paradigm will be invited or even interested in attending. Everyone here really really, and I do mean really, need to read Thomas Kuhn’s book on how “science” tends to cloister itself and resist new paradigms to the death. Of the current paradigm, that is. He is an atheistic evolutionist, so no evolutionist should have their faith threatened. And Thomas Nagels most recent work. Also an atheist and evolutionist (oddly enough, seeing as how he doesn’t see how Darwinian evolution could succeed). Good books from atheistic scientists and philosophers of science.
I assumed you were concerned about one side not participating with the other. Just wanted you to know that there are plenty of creationists in existence who read something that challenges their worldview. I invite evolutionists to do the same. That is, if you really care.

Chuck, I’m curious. Do you work in science? Because you’re making a lot of claims about things like “arbitrary paradigms” and one group getting “to decide what is and isn’t science.” I’m wondering if these claims are from specific experiences you’ve had working in the academic science world?

Chuck, no worries man. Didn’t mean to be invasive. It’s just that some of the things you’re claiming don’t look very much like the science world I’m seeing. Was just curious if your different perspective is because you’re on the outside looking in, or on the inside in a very different place in science.

no problems stem cell monk. Let’s just say I spend a lot of the time “outside” the box. I find it more conducive to free thought and uncluttered learning. While paradigms are helpful, they can also become prisons. That’s a point I shouldn’t have to make to those who enjoy “doing” science. I’ve always been a contrarian. And I hate being wrong. Not because I think one can become perfect in knowledge, but rather stupid in it’s misuse.
I’ll give you an example. YEC’s say the earth is young (not all limit that to 6,000 years). Evolutionists say the universe is old (usually around 14 billion years old, give or take). And they argue back and forth, and ostracize one the other. Here’s an outside the box question for you. Is there any chance they are both right?

I appreciate that Christine has put forth a reasonable standard by which creation scientists should be judged. While I fully agree with that standard, I believe that creationists who live up to it will find it to be necessary but not sufficient to be taken seriously, much less considered equal.

In fact, some creation scientists are doing exactly what Christine has described. At this point, however, they only exist in small numbers; perhaps dozens or fewer. I expect that it will take some time (probably decades) for a critical mass of creationists conducting experiments and collecting data to define models that could be presented to the mainstream scientific community.

Nonetheless, there certainly is evidence that creationists attend scientific conferences. We’ve mentioned one instance in the last couple of comments, and Todd Wood has also been praised on this blog for his engagement with the science community via conferences. Creationists may not fill stadiums, but the proof of concept is demonstrated nonetheless.

Hi Trevor, I once again find myself agreeing with you (this is getting to be a habit;-), and I think you make a very good point in your first paragraph. I seriously doubt that any Creationists who hold themselves to a high scientific standard will easily convince the scientific community to take them seriously.

A number of factors contribute to this.

One factor is that the creationist community has created an all but separate system of institutions, conferences and journals, involving minimal interaction with what I guess I can call “mainstream” scientific entities. This seems to be continuous with the Evangelical tendency to withdraw and create “alternate” educational institutions (a pattern that seems to have largely started in the 1920s). These institutions, conferences and journals seem to be in many ways modeled on those that are found in mainstream science (the effort to incorporate peer review is one such example). I don’t think this “withdrawing from the world”/alternate system approach to scientific practice will ever be well seen by scientists. One of the reasons for this is that it is interpreted (with some truth) as a way of protecting creation science from the scrutiny and criticism of the larger and less sympathetic scientific world, keeping it all in the family, so any creation scientist is seen as not just an outsider, but as one who has deliberately isolated him/herself from the standards of critical scrutiny that are supposed to be a part of the scientific vocation. This isn’t quite fair in my opinion, since any creationist who is sticking to high standards and trying to interact with mainstream scientists is obviously trying to buck this isolationist trend, but whether fair or no, they will likely be tarred with the same brush.

Another factor is that there are unfortunately so few creation scientists who are seriously adhering to scientific standards that are the ideal and more often than not the practice of the scientific community (though from what I can tell, there are a few who do so fairly consistently, Todd Wood being one). I’m not sure that many creationists see it this way, but I have confirmed this to my own satisfaction, mostly by looking up the references in creationist papers and discovering that they have muddled or badly misrepresented (I usually have no idea whether this is intentional or not) their sources, something that would be extremely damaging to their careers/reputations as mainstream scientists. Again, there are one or two in whom I have enough confidence that I see no reason to even check their sources, but this isn’t the case for very many. It therefore happens that the efforts of those who apply a high standard to their own work will be seen against the backdrop of those creationists who do not apparently have the same scruples. Once again, they will be tarred with the same brush almost no matter how good their intentions, which is, of course, not quite fair, but not surprising either.

The third factor is historical; to be short, most scientists are of the opinion that creationism had its chance (and was in fact the prevailing paradigm for a long time) and that it was debated and tested out of the arena in the 1800s. Whatever the merits of this view, and it is obviously far too simplistic, it is certainly the case that creationism is seen as being a badly out of date view that has resisted accepting a long established and generally agreed upon verdict.

All of these factors amount to perceptions, and it is these perceptions that will continue to make it difficult for creationists to make any inroads, especially if only a few are making the effort.

On the bright side, for at least a couple of those creation scientists who do hold themselves to a high standard and are consistently self-critical, I have often seen mainstream scientists respond in a way that I would call usually mystified, but mostly positive. I am convinced that if more creationists upheld this standard, being scrupulous with their references, resisting overstating their conclusions, being upfront about difficulties connected to their position, critiquing each other fairly but rigorously, opening themselves to mainstream critique, attending scientific conferences etc, there would be a move among scientists toward at least interacting with them more freely, and in my view, this would be a step in the right direction. I hate to say it, but I think that the only way this will come about is if those creationists who stick to high scientific standards are not afraid to call out those who do not. That could get ugly, but it might be necessary.

You are right; the proof of concept is there, but more need to be on board, and their work is cut out for them.

We should probably try not to agree so much. It could blur the lines of debate ;).

You make an interesting point about the evangelical tendency to withdraw and create alternate worlds, whether those be schools, journals, conferences, etc. Evangelicals certainly do that in many ways, and I’m sure it has caused and propagated some division. But I think it’s actually more the *result* of the divide with mainstream science than it is the cause.

I’m not sure that the poor adherence to scientific standards is what is keeping the communities separate either; although it certainly isn’t helping. I suppose creationists would pretty quickly assimilate in that regard if the communities were somehow merged, and they were subjected to the same level of peer review. Nonetheless, you’ve listed a number of important tasks for the creationists to demonstrate their legitimacy (being scrupulous with their references, resisting overstating their conclusions, being upfront about difficulties connected to their position, etc).

As to history, I agree that most scientists *believe* that creationists had their chance but lost the debate. But I don’t fully agree with those scientists. My view is that, starting back in the 18th century (with guys like Francis Bacon, Votaire, etc), there was a push to remove the supernatural/spiritual/religious from all aspects of science. There was an increasing interest in adopting a methodology for defining the world by naturalistic principles only and removing the need to appeal to God or other supernatural explanations. This naturalist philosophy certainly won out and the majority of scientists adhered to its tenets; but the creationists claims were never directly address empirically; rather they were excluded by convention. So I don’t believe that creationism was ever “debated and tested out of the arena.” It was marginalized, not because it failed an empirical test, but because it made appeals to non-natural forces. I think that this is probably the biggest reason that creationists are so withdrawn and isolated. We work off of basic assumptions and entertain certain hypotheses that are offensive to mainstream science and their naturalism. To cease to do so would be to cease being creationists. So we can’t very well give them up, and I don’t know if we will be taken seriously if we retain them.

Nonetheless I suppose the only way for creationists to integrate into the larger scientific community and play an active role would be to generate creationist models and bring data and results to conferences for review and discussion. And I’ll be the first to admit that we have our work cut out for us. I hope to convince some of my fellow creationists of the need to build inroads, but I’ve been meet with some serious apathy so far. And even if creationists do take the steps we’re discussing here, there still needs to be a level of intellectual flexibility among the evolutionists.

I think this Evangelical tendency to withdraw and create alternate intellectual and institutional worlds, whatever it comes from, is self-perpetuating. The more we do it, the more we are marginalized, and the more we end up having to cultivate this alternate system as a result. I’ve seen a number of historians point to the media scorn in the wake of the Scopes trial as a strong causal factor, with many Evangelicals realizing that they were no longer nearly as culturally influential as they once were and with some conferences in the later 1920s leading to a concerted effort to set up these alternate institutions in order to defend against increasing secularization. Either way, you are right; it is both the result and the cause of the divide, and I can’t see this changing as this alternate system becomes more concrete and entrenched in the Evangelical community.

For the history part, I was obviously trading mostly in perceptions. I think there needs to be some nuance in looking at historical progress of any kind. In this case, I agree that there was a very strong anti-supernatural push, something that has been softened somewhat by many thinkers ever since positivism lost its foothold. It was definitely very strong in the later 19th century when a Laplacian view was dominant, being sold as the only legitimate scientific and rational choice, but there is no longer any scientific warrant for this dogmatism, and I think most philosophers of science realize it, taking naturalism as an unverifiable philosophical assumption and justifying it based on the fact that scientific progress has continued to be highly successful along a purely natural trajectory (which is not in itself all that bad as a justification).

When it comes to creationism having lost the debate, I think this only becomes less easy to sustain when one zooms in on of the anti-supernatural rhetoric that was popular in the 19th century. Where this bias is highlighted, one gets the impression that this philosophical agenda was fueling the push for natural hypotheses at the expense of supernatural views for each phenomenon.

However, I wouldn’t agree that this should be our main focus in assessing this history. I think Martin J. S. Rudwick in his Bursting the Limits of Time and Worlds Before Adam makes it clear that scientific hypotheses of this kind, however motivated, were constantly being brought to the crucible of the actual data that was being collected. It was constantly being asked; does the hypothesis on this side of the debate explain this feature or not? He certainly discusses the undertow of political, religious and philosophical commitments (on both sides), but it seems that at each step, the hypotheses were forced to grapple with geological data, with the young earth view progressively losing ground wherever it simply couldn’t explain a feature that was elegantly and simply explained by an old earth model involving known and observable natural causes. In many cases, features were thought to be utterly inexplicable on anything but a very long timescale involving the apparent effects of many long term processes (river formation, erosion, forest growth, sedimentation etc) successively superposed each on the last one, such that the overall impression was of an extremely long history, though there was little sense of exactly how long all of this would have taken. These explanations slowly convinced the vast majority of the qualified observers, both those with a strong anti-religious bias who wanted to be convinced from the get go, and those who had no apparent interest either way. Most theologians at that time allowed for a great deal of flexibility when it comes to how creation events actually took place and in what time-frame, so for the most part, the agreement with an old earth paradigm was not usually religiously driven either way (although deism seems to have played into it around the time of Hutton and Buffon). My impression of the progress of biology from Darwin on is similar; all sorts of biases and preconceptions fed into the process (Biology and Ideology from Descarts to Darwin is an interesting book on that), but it was the explanatory power of his theory for dealing with enormously diverse sets of constantly incoming data that ultimately had most biologists, regardless of their background, lining up on roughly the same side, while bickering about mechanism all the while. Impressions can be a funny thing, and I’m always opening to changing an impression like this if there is new information, but I can say that I think it unlikely that I would ever see that same history and conclude that it was ultimately only ideology and bias that called the shots and brought us to where we are today. I may be underestimating the ideological bias in how the debate played out, but from what I can see it looms much larger in media debates and non-scientific literature than in the actual scientific debates and papers.

The response I’ve seen is “sure, but the game was rigged in only allowing natural explanations”. I understand this argument, but I think it comes down to parsimony; if known natural causes adequately explain a natural phenomenon, I think we are missing the warrant for invoking any other cause, let alone supernatural causes of which we do not yet have any scientifically verified examples. And the natural causes that have been invoked to date do not strike me as a stretch at all. I also notice that almost every time a supernatural cause has been used as a placeholder for explaining a phenomenon, it has ultimately been displaced by a natural cause when more information was available, so when it comes to some unexplained occurrence in the natural world, my bet tends to be on the natural cause, all things being equal. I think that the whole picture certainly (and almost by definition) requires a supernatural cause, and yes, I think the universe is a “put up job”, and I have no problem in principle with supernatural explanations for anything, but I tend to think that the natural explanations for features of the natural world have been highly successful. If I thought the natural explanations looked contrived and desperate, or the evidence looked too “intentional”, I would certainly consider entertaining something beyond the causes that we know, including the supernatural.

Whatever you happen to think of that, I think we can’t say something as sweeping as “creationists claims were never directly address empirically”. I think that the actual content of the late 18th and early to mid-19th century debates (not the public but the scientific debates) stand against that view, at least when it comes to geology and biology. From what I can see, they were addressed empirically in great detail, but I’d be interested in hearing from you what contemporary claims were bypassed in your view. Modern creationist claims, where they differ from 18th and 19th Century claims, were of course not addressed, but my understanding is that they have been addressed since (though new ones keep cropping up, so I suppose this isn’t always true)

I think the influence of the anti-supernaturalist position was strong, and I’m trying to see where it was decisive, but I don’t get that impression in following the progress of the debates. To sum it up; it was never philosophy debates that were going on in the great scientific societies, it was almost always debates about features of the natural world and what best explains those features, and the final physical causes that were ultimately agreed upon never look like desperate gambits for avoiding obvious conclusions of supernatural intervention. They usually ended up looking like the most reasonable hypothesis that explained the most observations in the most parsimonious way, and very often, there is simply no competing mechanism, creationist or otherwise, to muddy this outcome.

I’m curious about what leads us to different readings of this history. It’s probably a matter of different sources.

I appreciate your agreement with some of the tasks that the creationist community has ahead of it if it wants to be taken more seriously by the scientific world. I would definitely read their material with more interest and I think it would be the same for many others, if I felt that they were better policing the quality of their work. I don’t really expect you to agree with much of the above, but hopefully we’re on the same page for this one! There are not many of you pushing in that direction, but I’ve been very happy to see that you are one of them and I wish I saw more of that.

I enjoyed reading your synopsis of the last couple hundred years of debate. You made some nicely balanced arguments that I have little need to qualify. Most importantly I think you’ve done a nice job casting the landscape in a balanced light showing that not everything was religio-centric, but rather many were just interested in asking scientific questions within a well defined, structured methodology. I think as scientists today, we can heartily agree with the necessity of that.

I would just make one clarification, though. You stated, “I think the influence of the anti-supernaturalist position was strong, and I’m trying to see where it was decisive, but I don’t get that impression in following the progress of the debates.” That’s certainly fair. I don’t mean to suggest that creationism was left behind solely because of anti-supernaturalist sentiments. I think the anti-supernatural efforts were instrumental in advancing what we would consider today to be a highly objective epistemology for the purpose of gaining knowledge. This ultimately led to the marginalization of creationism in the greater debate because naturalistic methodology and philosophy, as they took hold, removed the ability of creationism to argue convincingly within a new epistemic standard that wouldn’t listen to non-naturalistic ideas. In effect, naturalism, and later Darwinism and beyond, were demonstrated as fact because it was the only set of ideas that could be dealt with using the new method of gathering knowledge. However, I wouldn’t view this as a decisive blow by anti-supernaturalists, because the creationists failed to put forth a testable model for their position. We contributed to our own marginalization in that way. Nonetheless, I don’t think creationism was directly and empirically assessed because it didn’t have a model to test yet. Rather, naturalism was shown to be a good explanation of lots of data. I happily admit that naturalism and Darwinism explain a lot of things, but I also think that they are only one way of understanding the data, and the creationist arguments simply haven’t been made well yet. That doesn’t prove them wrong. It just proves them unproven. The science community needs to avoid a false dilemma in which evidence *for* one proposition is mistakenly accepted as evidence *against* another. I believe that’s what’s happened with creationism; its been ruled out because other theories have gathered more evidence. In our current scientific culture, I will admit, that’s how “truth” is assessed. Ideas compete and whichever one garners the most evidence is the one we select. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, new evidence, in this case creationist evidence, may one day turn the tables.

I love this statement that you made. It really opens up the discussion. “From what I can see, they [creationist claims] were addressed empirically in great detail, but I’d be interested in hearing from you what contemporary claims were bypassed in your view.” Thanks for such a great conversation starter. So as not to burden the conversation, let me just give you one contemporary claim which is very relevant to this blog. Creationists claim that the diversity of life can be explained as it is in the genesis account, i.e. the creation of an array of discrete organisms that span the broadest spectrum of complexity and utility. This idea has only begun to be somewhat rigorously tested by creationists in the past couple of decades. Of course the rigor does not yet compare to that of the theory of evolution because of the disparity of personnel and monetary resources. Nonetheless, baraminology is an active area of creationist research trying to address that claim empirically.

The question is, has the creationists’ assertion (that God created the diversity of life as detailed in Genesis) been “addressed empirically”? I would answer no. The creationists have not yet proven their model, but their attempt to address the issue empirically is in its infancy; so any failure to produce a cohesive model that rivals evolution I would argue is not yet indicative of the success of that effort. Thus it has not yet been directly and fully tested by its proponents. Can it be said that the evolutionists have sufficiently addressed the creationists assertion? I would answer no again. The evolutionists do have an explanation for the diversity of life, and this is where my assertion comes into play that the debate has been played on the naturalist’s turf, with rules which exclude the ability of the creationists to compete. When I ask a Darwinist to explain what biological evidence causes him or her to accept evolution and reject creation (and I’ve asked this question to many Darwinists), the most common answer that I get is some reference to phylogenetics or a tree of life that demonstrates common ancestry with a nested hierarchy of organisms which then allows a heuristic approach to biology. So their answer to why they reject creationism is based on the merits of evolution. That is the very essence of a false dilemma. They may be right in the end, but they have nonetheless committed a logical fallacy by rejecting one theory based on evidence for another when both theories could potentially explain the same phenomenon. As I stated before, on some level this is how “truth” is assessed in our scientific world. Nonetheless, we can still often get it wrong if we don’t test multiple models.

But to take this one step further, its important to give the theory of evolution its due and see if it has convincingly demonstrated its case. Regarding phylogenetics, I do this by asking what the assumptions are in that field. That question is met with a flaw of study design and epistemology. Phylogenetics is given as one of the ultimate evidences for common ancestry and by extension macroevolution. But common ancestry is the most basic assumption that is accepted by the phylogeneticist. This is clearly evident in both basic and advanced text books on the subject as well as in the primary literature. I have made this point extensively on this blog. You can read my comments at the link below where I quoted a number of texts to demonstrate my point.

So this is one modern example in which the creationist ideas have not been dealt with directly. They have been assessed indirectly according to tenets of evolution that assume their conclusions at the outset. To be clear, I don’t think the phylogeneticists are being dishonest and purposely reading their biases into their conclusions. They are making assumptions that they find both necessary and reasonable, and generating some impressive models in the process. Nonetheless, their biases are real and thus create an uncomfortable amount of circular reasoning, the merits of which can only be granted or denied by testing other models. If we really want the truth, we have to accept the limitations of our abilities as scientists and include diverse perspectives, ideas and methodologies.

What is your perspective? What creationist claims do you feel have been adequately addressed in a direct, empirical manner?

wow, good points all to you and AMC. It was right to note that Christianity, and specifically evangelical fundamentalism, was actually quite friendly towards the Darwinian paradigm. Neither Hodge nor Warfield had any specific problems with it, because they embraced science as another way of “showing” God’s glory by the study of an orderly universe. This respect went back centuries, which is why so many scientific advances were made by scientists who were Christians. Not all, of course, but many, probably most. It was, as you would say Trevor, when the anti-supernatural bent of darwinianism became more obvious that resistance began to be offered. The rest, as they say, is history. I do find it ironic that the Scopes trial is still mentioned as if Darwin had won the day, when actually, technically, anyway, it lost. Not that creationism made a grand showing, but using a pigs tooth as proof of ape to man evolution should be a cause of great embarrassment. But you only see it mentioned by creationist. If one studies how the trial was handled by the print media, it was clear that evolution had been chosen to win the day. It must have been, because it certainly didn’t win by any scientific standards. This bias is still seen today, and is both appreciated and fed by both Darwinian evolutionists and the “new” atheists.
I cannot be optimistic as to future dialogue between the two camps, three if you count ID. In fact, I think that many creationists are “living off the land” of the ID camp, often using or grabbing and readjusting ID science to make it more “Christian”. I would be very interested in what it is that either one of you think is going to occur that will suddenly open the lines up. Creationists are not about to forfeit supernatural beliefs for the “honor” of being “allowed” to “pretend” their science is authentic. Atheists and atheistic evolutionists are not about to embrace another religion other than the one they currently practice, materialistic naturalism. If I saw any chance or hope anywhere it would be if the Darwin camp would open up a bit more to ID, and if creationists did the same. That would, if only by default, bring them “closer” together, but I don’t want to be more optimistic than I should.
Unless something very significant happens, something that would shake all three paradigms to the core, I don’t see any of the camps leaving their comfort zone. The ID camp can embrace some of the creationists’ creeds, as some have already done. The creationist cannot embrace the foundation of darwinianism without destroying the entire foundation of their own beliefs. Atheists can inch a bit closer to ID (as some have with panspermia or it’s equivalent) but only so far. Does this mean the ID camp is our best hope. Maybe. I just don’t see it occurring with anyone else. Again, if any of you are scientists, please read Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolution if you haven’t already. You don’t have to agree with all of his conclusions, and many didn’t. But the book rendered a planned fourteen volume tome of science history dead in it’s tracks. Never made past the first volume. That should give you some idea of how “shattering” many scientists found his book. This was not his intent, but it was the result. I doubt that it is recommended often by college professors. It’s the kind of book a teacher doesn’t want his students reading until they have signed on completely to whatever their paradigm needs to be. Otherwise, they may find the ground moving around beneath their feet.
Enjoy reading the two of your comments. Always thought provoking and searching. Nothing I have just written is intended to reflect negatively on what both of you said. Just salting the meat. Be safe.

I wouldn’t say that it is Darwinism that has an anti-supernatural bent, but rather the scientific method itself. The whole point of science is to provide a naturalistic explanation for things, while evolution is perfectly compatible with religious belief and the existence (or otherwise) of a God.
I would like to add that the Nebraska Man wasn’t actually presented as evidence of evolution at the Scopes trial. In fact, no scientific evidence was given at all, as the trial was about the teacher breaking the law by teaching evolution.
Also, it should be noted that a great number of scientists were sceptical of Nebraska Man when it was first presented, and that cheek teeth of humans and pigs and peccary’s are very similar. The famous reconstruction of Nebraska Man was actually just an illustration done for a new article, which the man responsible, G.E. Smith, emphasised himself in 19922. It was based more upon the Java Man fossil.
“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.”

wait a minute, 19922? Did you sneak off into the future again. That’s just not fair mega. Just joking with you. I know it’s a typo. Trying to inject a little humor. My intention wasn’t to focus all attention on just the Scopes trial. I realize it didn’t play a significant part in the trial per se, but the press ran with it. And yes, there were sceptics. There are always sceptics. But I’m afraid the Darwin community was more than happy to ride with the press if it helped in the cause. Rather than repeat everything. I am also responding in greater detail to Christine. You may read that if you wish. Be safe

Curses. My time travel plot has been revealed.
I wouldn’t say that the Nazi atrocities were caused by either Darwinism or the naturalist bent of science. Or, if they were, then it was based upon a gross misunderstanding of it. To blame the Nazi atrocities on the scientific method or evolution would be like blaming people getting pushed off buildings on the theory of gravity.
Every single fossil ever discovered has been hotly debated. The conclusions would be less reliable if it were not so. For every fraud or misunderstanding like Nebraska Man, there are a hundred or a thousand legitimate fossils. Lucy and Ardi have never been discredited. The biggest debate regarding them is between creationists, who can’t seem to agree whether they are fully ape or fully human.
Nobody who understands the theory of evolution claims that it says humans are at the top. We are not the end goal of evolution, or the most evolved. No species is any more evolved than any other. We are but one twig on a very dense tree. Every twig on that tree is still growing and will continue to grow and split.
I have not read Kuhns book, but I do protest the claim that there is no evidence for evolution. There is a staggeringly vast amount of evidence for evolution, from a startlingly diverse array of scientific fields.

Well, at least you’re honest about time travel. lol.
Per your claim of staggeringly vast amounts, again, one man’s treasure is another’s garbage. I certainly agree with you that there are vast amounts of “claims” for proof of evolution, but I do not see them as proofs. As with your exchange with trevor, I do not see “trees” or genetics as positive indicators. The trees would look more like tumbleweeds with shotgun holes scattered throughout if all of the assumptions, guesses, and just plain made up “connections” are removed. And based on the wide readings I engage in, advances in the study of genetics has been one of the main reasons why those who leave the Darwinian camp exit. So as I said above, while one group is saying “wow, these advances in genetics are the icing on the cake for evolutionists”, many atheist evolutionists are saying “good grief, there’s no way this information could have happened by chance”. I would assume, accurately, I think, that both the creationist and evolutionary camps tend to interpret information through their predetermined paradigms.
That’s why the book by Thomas Kuhn is significant. I believe few scientists are very good at leaving the established paradigm, even when it develops numerous faults and cracks to it’s structure. There are some. Lewis and Nagel just two of many. Even Francis Crick (I hope we can agree he is significant, at least in reference to DNA) has begun reaching for aliens or panspermia of any sort as progress in the studies of informational theory have advanced and shown the incredible volume and complexity of this small structure. He has been forced to, at least in his own mind, to admit this didn’t happen by chance and mutations. I think you and I will live to see a significant migration following his and others leads. I’m not saying any or all of them will embrace creation, just that they can no longer pretend this and other integral parts of earth and it’s inhabitants are a result of chance, randomness, selection or mutations.
It may seem that I am obsessed with Kuhn’s book. A short back history will help. Kuhn’s “short” monograph was labelled as Vol. 2, #2, in what was called the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. It was envisioned as an eventual minimum of fourteen volumes by various key figures in the sciences. It never got past Kuhn in volume 2. It was moribund. Over. Never went further. I find it interestlng that so few of those invested in the sciences have read it. Yes, it may be dated. 1962 was the first edition of the book. But any book, on any topic, that wipes out at least 12 volumes of projected contributions on any subject must be significant. What was in it that killed off more than a dozen volumes of contributions to a scientific encyclopedia? I’ll let you find out if the desire hits you. I have tried to hint a bit, but could never recapture all that he says. Imagine a projected series of volumes with the title “Successes in Evolutionary Theory” that dies a quick death after the submission of one evolutionary scientist. Wouldn’t that be an interesting read? At least for evolutionists? It is not a book that will make you depart evolution, or become a creationist, or a deist, or the like. It wasn’t that kind of book. It was written by a philosopher of science (trained as a physicist) to reveal science as it then stood. What reading it will do for you or anyone interested, is show you how science does science. Then, and do a degree now. Unfortunately, lessons learned by one generation can quickly be forgotten by the next.
I don’t indulge in arguing minute details concerning evolution. I think it misses the big picture. The overall paradigm of evolution in particular. If for example, a plane is crashing, it do not see arguing about the quality of the toilet paper in the bathroom as significant. An overstatement, to be sure. But still containing a lot of truth. I reject evolution because, after over 40 years of studying the sciences, I see no unarguable proof for it. I just don’t. Indicators? Sure, if your paradigm demands it. Possibilities? Yes, but so astronomically unlikely I just can’t accept the theory. And my complaints are echoed by many. And far from being exclusive to creationists. Plenty of atheists are content to sit on the sidelines. We don’t believe it’s possible (not if we are understanding and applying science correctly) and it hasn’t been proven. You and others claim it has. There are plenty who disagree. My point is I only indulge in debating the essentials. And the most basic of any theory is it’s possibility or probability. And it’s here that the theory “loses me at hello”. I just can’t get beyond it. Not unless I want to believe in miracles. Which I do. But not originating in chance. Chance is nothing. Causes nothing. Does nothing. No chance, as they say. To understand that the probability of life originating by accident from non-living chemicals is far worse than you or I being able to find one particular sub-atomic pariticle in the known universe, well, my apologies. I just can’t indulge. But I do find your posts enjoyable, and appreciate the honest and affable manner in which you debate. If you ever want to get back to the basics, “ring” me up. Until then, I will just admire your handiwork. Wishing you well.

hey mega, forgot to address something you wrote so I’ve run back to the computer. I agree that no one should blame Darwinian evolution “directly” for Nazi atrocities. However, your example begs a question. No, we wouldn’t blame gravity for the death of those pushed off buildings. We would, however, blame the people pushing them off. And we would think it significant that gravity played a role, even if only because the people believed gravity justified their actions. I, of course, see gravity as a law. A fundamental force. I do not see evolution in the same light. Nor should it be claimed that it is a LAW. I don’t read anywhere where it is referred to as the law of evolution. So you might have made a category error in your argument.
Nonetheless, I do believe the argument can be made that the “effects” of the success of the theory of evolution, success in the sense of being accepted, certainly encouraged qualities and actions in some people that more than likely were already nascent. Once the accountability to God, or a divine being with moral absolutes, occurred, I think it reasonable to see that ANY theory or philosophy embracing or encouraging said beliefs would certainly have negative and regrettable effects. Especially given mankinds history as we know it. I mean, if God isn’t involved with humans, or doesn’t even exist, then on what basis do we judge our actions. Consensus? Current bias?
So no, Darwin wasn’t responsible. Directly. I add that because he did intend to remove God from the picture, as it were. And give it a “scientific” glossiness. And this is what it did. I think he would have been horrified at the actions of Hitler and the Nazi’s. I also think he would have been hard pressed to condemn them on any transcendent basis. His theory helped remove the restraints from the animals, intentional or not. They were already animals.
That was an important part of your post, and I didn’t want to forget or have you think I just glossed over it. People are evil because, well, they can be evil. Restraints are good for beings capable of terrible evil. Even if they only think the restraints are real.
Thanks again for sharing. I will get to that video, though like you, I doubt I will agree with much or any of it if the approach you defined it is near accurate. I do think that I will do it anyway, If you took the time, I should honor that. I’ll get back to you.

Laws are mathematical, and a theory will never become a law, no matter how much evidence supports it.
We see gravity happen all the time, and experimentally show this, hence gravity is a fact. We have built an explanatory framework of what happens to explain why it works this way, and so far it is supported by the evidence, hence gravity is a theory. The mathematical descriptions of how it works are the laws of gravity.
We see evolution happen all the time, and can experimentally show it, and the evidence we have supports the diversity of life being the result of evolution, so evolution is both a fact and a theory, like gravity. However, evolution is not mathematical in nature, unlike gravity, so it is not, and never will be, a law.
This isn’t a failing on behalf of evolution, it is simply ow science works.

thanks for your kind reply. I find your statement unconvincing as to the antisupernatural bent of Darwinism. Darwin himself was quite clear as to what he considered the ultimate effect of his theory would mean, that the universe (here the earth in particular) would no longer need God to explain what there is. Also, if carried to full course, by your logic one would have to say that the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi scientists and others had nothing to do with the Darwinian concept of evolution but was a result simply of the naturalist bent of science. I don’t think you want to lay the blame entirely on the scientific community in Germany without some part being played by the Darwinian social philosophy that most all historians agree arose from it. I don’t mean to speak for you, but you don’t strike me as such a person.

Thanks for laying out an excellent and balanced discussion. Joel if you’re looking at this, and you have the chance, please forward my email to Trevor so that we don’t continue to monopolize your comments section. I don’t have the gift of saying what I have to say simply or quickly. Trevor, one of the problems I see is, as you say, that the effort of some modern creationists to create a strong predictive model that explains the evidence in a straightforward manner is very much in its infancy. And the effort seems self-limiting to me (see some of my short discussion with Christine below). There often seems to be a sense that it is sufficient to bring forward a very loose hypothesis that often only superficially handles the evidence. I’m thinking of things like hydrologic sorting, ecological zones (never understood this one even in principle), and faster, bigger organisms climbing higher to avoid the flood waters and therefore giving the impression of an evolutionary progression through the fossil layers. This will satisfy someone who does really mind the details and who is out for immediate satisfaction. When you get into the details however, these suggestions seem all but embarrassing to me, hardly explaining a fraction of the evidence, and flying in the face of much of it. I’m glad there is an effort at model building, the problem isn’t there. The problem is that some are making an effort at model building, and as soon as it sounds like a plausible explanation on the surface, it sort of stops there, and creationists use it as a reference point for answering objections from then on. It becomes apologetics filler, instead of becoming an actively researched hypothesis. There needs to be more drive to go beyond that point.

It sort of seems like AiG’s MO is actually somewhat widespread; Just be sure that most creationists can provide an answer to everything (the apologetics creed). The quality of the answer and its actual ability to explain or predict complex patterns is left to the side. One exception to this (and I’m actively looking for others) is the sustained (and now well funded, with ark encounter on its way) efforts at baraminology – as you said, especially with reference to figuring out how many animals needed to fit on the ark and what they would look like. I see big problems with it, and Joel has certainly pointed to some important issues, but I do think that the effort at model building has been consistent, though the efforts at making it predictive seem to be less important than at making the scheme internally consistent. Along these lines, many papers have been brought out that investigate particular slices of the animal kingdom using baraminology.

On the other hand, efforts like RATE are hardly a step in the right direction; it is the very antithesis of model building. I would love to know where you see sustained efforts at model building in the creationist community, because to me it’s not clear – though I only follow a limited range of creationist output. I hear a lot of: “See? We observe billions of dead things called fossils, buried in these rock layers that were laid down by water all over the earth”, but the efforts at addressing why there are clear patterns in these rock layers, why there are consistent and ordered rock layers worldwide, why there is a particular fossil progression etc etc, are generally abortive and rare. Whether or not I would be convinced, I would at least be fascinated to see real efforts at model building that does the real work of predicting patterns like these instead of just trying to be self consistent and only generally consistent large-scale patterns.

So have the creationist models been addressed empirically? In the sense that they have not yet been formulated as detailed, predictive models, the answer is no, but this is only because we don’t have anything concrete to work with. The testability of a scientific model, which is what makes it a scientific model, is posterior to its being formulated in detailed predictive terms that are in a position to explain complex patterns in nature. I think that some of the creationist work, such as the proposed reasons for a clear ordering of fossils in the rock layer, are demonstrably incorrect, and these have, in my view, been addressed fairly conclusively; they fail to actually predict the patterns we see. Period. Just to be clear, it isn’t that a better formulation of these suggestions couldn’t make up for this failing, it’s just that it hasn’t yet. I agree with you that evidence that supports one model is not by that very fact evidence that disproves a competing model, it would need to run up against predictions in that competing model first. It needs to distinguish between the two in order to be a useful scientific test. In our case, we simply don’t have predictive, empirically based creationist models in place, and until they are formulated, they can’t be falsified, which leaves them with no scientific credit by definition (so far). I think that there are reasons to believe that this may change to some extent as creationists start to look more closely at detailed models and pattern prediction, but I think we aren’t there yet. I think you are in a good position to point out where this is already taking place.

Were the creationist models of the 19th century addressed? Sure, but at the time, they were mostly being formulated in terms of catastrophism as opposed to uniformitarianism; there was very little sense of how to establish absolute timescales on either side, so it was impossible to argue about exact age. The generally agreed upon outcome of these debates was a bit of a mix. Uniformitarian principles were found to be extremely successful for explaining many geological features, but catastrophes were also found to have a very significant part to play. The model of a single, worldwide flood was not found to be effective for explaining what we observed, though it was extensively tested against the data by religious and non-religious scientists alike. The model would need to be formulated in a new, radically different and difficult to imagine way (there has been some work in this direction) in order to be worth re-considering, given the extent to which it was investigated in the early 1800s. And it really was investigated; some of the heaviest hitters in the scientific world at that time, like Cuvier, embraced this position (though he looked at repeat wide-scale catastrophes) and actively tried to make it work with the support of huge networks of scientists. For biology, William Paley hardly had a model, but in a sense, it was the best pre-Darwinian explanation of the good fit between form, function and environment. There wasn’t anything more specific than that. It was, as you would say, not proven directly wrong (and in a sense, teleology is ultimately fairly immune to refutation), but the predictive and rigorous model that evolution has become (in my view) stepped in to explain what we were seeing in detail and with respect to the complex patterns we see, pushing Paley’s teleology out of the realm of a direct plausible scientific theory with explanatory power for the patterns we see (though it may still work from the theological perspective and as a larger argument – anthropic reasoning etc).

Regarding phylogenetics, I think you are fair with your critique. While I think common descent is the up-front working assumption of phylogenetics and common descent is not in itself established to be true based on phylogenetics, I also think that certain outcomes in phylogenetics are consistent with and predicted by common descent, while not being predicted by any known creationist models. The danger of circular reasoning is there, I agree, which is why careful formulation is important. The real test is in the fact that the assumption, if incorrect, should lead to bizarre, inconsistent results, while they should lead (though perhaps not uniquely) to consistent results if correct (sort of a reductio argument). For example, there is no reason to suspect that we should be able to independently derive similar phylogenetic trees using different conserved morphological or genetic features between kinds, and I would think that phylogenetic research would be impracticable (i.e. a total mess) except within each kind. Common descent doesn’t predict perfectly consistent phylogenies, but it does predict a fairly high degree of similarity for conserved sequences and features, and if the assumption wasn’t true, we simply have no reason to anticipate consistency between independently derived phylogenies at all. The maintained consistency between independently derived phylogenetic trees could actually be an excellent marker for the limits of each created kind within the YEC model. So yes, I agree, phylogenetics itself can’t be used as direct evidence for common descent, but I think it isn’t usually looked at in this way, and it is not the actual purpose of phylogenetics (though I don’t doubt that it is often misused in this way in the media, for example). I’ll admit my own limitations for this subspecialty, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

Overall, I remain open to creationism turning the tables, even if I personally consider it unlikely at this point, and I am both open and interested when it comes to creationist model building, but I think some of my above criticisms apply before this positive work can become meaningful or deserving of a place at the table. I don’t personally view any of this effort to create an alternate paradigm as an absolute theological necessity, but I look on with interest all the same.

@ Approved Money Changers.
I agree with you about Todd Wood. From what I have seen on his work (especially his paper on horse evolution) he is scrupulous with making sure that he has the scientific facts correct and up to date: I cannot fault him on that, despite my disagreement with his interpretations of the evidence, and the assumptions contained therein (such as unprecedented rapid post-flood evolution). I should also note that I interacted a good deal with Marcus Ross when he was getting a PhD at the University of Rhode Island, and I respected his desire to learn the science which he intended to critique.

My experience to you is also similar: many articles that I have seen in publications such as AIG which deal with areas in science that I am familiar with are usually cringe-worthy in their lack of understanding of basic facts, let alone of the current state of scientific knowledge in the field. (I recall in particular an article about marsupials where, among other errors, the author thought that the developing young in the uterus were nourished by yolk, and declared that marsupials and placentals were identical to each other apart from their reproductive systems.)

Interesting, I hadn’t heard of Marcus Ross, but having now looked him up, I can see how he would fit this profile. The truth is, outside of Todd Wood, I’ve only heard of other examples through hearsay, and I am only familiar with some of Todd’s work. I’ve looked into many AiG articles and I came away with much the same impression, though I would have expected that an organization like that could afford to have a much higher standard of review. I would love to hear about more creationists whose work can be considered trustworthy, at least of the level of the facts and references they make use of.

Right now, the body of creationist technical literature seems to be designed to give a strong impression of scholarly rigor on the surface, contributing to this impression of a thriving alternate science, but it tends to fall apart in the details through numerous reference and factual errors. It’s almost as if a great amount of care is given to the provide the articles with numbers, graphs, tables, long reference lists, high level technical jargon, and a polished look, while there is little concern about fact checking the details that few of their readership will bother to look into. I’m guessing this is ultimately a supply and demand thing. The demand of the majority of creationists is that they can maintain to themselves (in perfect sincerity I think) and convey to others the impression that creationists have successfully established their own alternate scientific paradigm and that that there is nothing to truly distinguish it from the mainstream paradigm besides worldview. So long as they continue to allow inaccuracies and misrepresentations of sources, this will continue to be nothing more than an impression and while I am highly appreciative of the earnest desire of some creationists to reverse this situation, it will probably depend on a greater demand for accuracy and careful review from the rank and file of creationists. Not sure how that would come about, but AiG and others will probably keep going with their present standards until they start to feel this pressure.

Joel (and others if he clears this comment) might wish to read the mean-spirited comment just posted by ‘CL’ here (after I mentioned under the young earth creationist blog post one of Christine Janis’ comments made in this discussion):http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/to-infinity-and-beyond.html
I do not propose replying to CL as there is no substance to their remarks and they are simply whinging.

you know, i thought for kicks and giggles i would go to the link provided and read some horrible comment by “CL” to see what the fuss is about. Did it disappear? Did i miss it. Threre was only one there and it was about as innocuous as a comment could be. What was offensive or insulting? Much ado about nothing, perhaps?

Although I decided to ignore it, I then found out that it was NOT ‘much ado about nothing’.

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
See the link to that Worldview Warriors blog post. And the following comment:
“I see your stalker is spreading his persecution campaign on this blog. I left a comment. People like that want to take over and direct the comments to what they want to talk about instead of the post.”
(Curtis Long)

Long fails to discuss any of the blog post (whereas I DID discuss part of what Risner wrote). And yes I have ‘stalked’ Bob Sorensen ie criticised his utterly mendacious YEC blog posts. It’s not a crime.

I can only say, Ashley, and excuse my French, why in the hell do you even participate on sites like that. What a total waste. At least Joel here tries to maintain, to some degree, a bit of civility, with varying degrees of success. All I can see there is everyone calling each other liar, stupid, childish, ignorant, dishonest, etc. on to infinity. I don’t see any discussion of actual issues, any back and forth about scientific facts. I do see LOTS of statements and claims backed up by nothing. You really shouldn’t waste your time there, it will just drag you down. Believe me, I know from experience. Is it making your life better? Are you benefiting from the diatribes? Is your mind being challenged, or your patience strained? You should stay here. I think it’s better. Of course, considering what you linked me to, that ‘s not necessarily saying much. Wishing you the best.

“When I ask a Darwinist to explain what biological evidence causes him or her to accept evolution and reject creation (and I’ve asked this question to many Darwinists), the most common answer that I get is some reference to phylogenetics or a tree of life that demonstrates common ancestry with a nested hierarchy of organisms which then allows a heuristic approach to biology. So their answer to why they reject creationism is based on the merits of evolution. That is the very essence of a false dilemma. ”

Then, Trevor, it is up to you to explain why a creationist view, rather than an evolutionary one of common descent. would result in these said nested heirarchies (which originally were based only on morphological data, but have more recently been upheld by a wide diversity of molecular data). The entire original point of modern phylogenetics (aka transformed cladistics, pattern versus process) was that these heirarchies can be observed and quantified independently of any hypothesis of evolutionary processes (the very argument that got the evolutionary biologist Colin Patterson so firmly ensonsced in the creationist quote-mine literature)..

Christine, you’re absolutely right. Its up to me and other creationist scientists to explain our view and demonstrate its merits above those of the theory of evolution. This is an active area of research in creation biology which I support.

But with respect, I would ask that you follow this link below that I provided earlier to a discussion on this blog about the a priori assumption of common ancestry that is inherent in phylogenetic methods. I think my comment on 01.09.16 at 11:44AM mostly summarizes my contention. My goal in that discussion was to demonstrate that modern phylogenetics is certainly not, as you suggest above, independent of hypotheses of evolutionary processes and assumptions. I’ve critiqued several quotes from textbooks on the subject which I feel are representative of the texts and primary literature that I’ve read. I would be interested to hear your perspectives as someone who obviously knows the field well.

Per your reply to Christine, I certainly hope that is not what she implied. Evolutionary presumptions flow like a thick river of blood through all branches of science. It’s far too embedded to be removed by wishful thinking or simple proclamations.
Have been following your te de te with mega about trees and phylogenics. It reminds me of a story I heard a while back.
There’s a spacecraft warping through space when a drive malfunction causes an explosion. Only three astronauts survive, two of them managing to go through the “green lab” to each grap a small sapling before escaping. The two of them find themselves drifting through space, light years from any star or planet. One says to the other:
“Whew that was close. Good thing I grabbed this little sapling or we wouldn’t have saved anything”.
The other astronaut replies ” What do you mean? Look at my sapling. It’s far better. The braches are all full and solid. The twigs are secure and numerous. MY sapling is far better”
Not so!” proclaims the other. Look at the root system on mine. A much more complete sample I would certainly think!”
This goes on for several minutes when the third astronaut drifts by, notices their heated exchange, and jets her way over to them both.
“What’s the problem?” she asks.
“We’re arguing about who has the best example of a complete tree:, one says as both nod.
“You’ve got a bigger issue to solve than who’s got the best one”, she quietly adds.
“What’s that?” they both inquire.
“Where the hell are you going to plant them?”

And thus my response. Arguing about the best tree in this case may be a small example of the genetic fallacy. No creationist tree is going to resemble or comply with evolutionary expectations. Their roots are planted in two totally different world (view)s. Creationist don’t believe in common descent for all life form (speaking specifically of animal, insect, ocean, etc.). So how would a creationist develop a tree that would meet (and match) evolutionary expectations. He cannot do so and remain true to the biblical account. And this is what many, almost most I would say, evolutionary creationists do. The more accommodating they are to the evolutionary paradigm, the more they abandon the biblical one. I understand their thinking. I do not think, and i’ll give most of them the benefit of the doubt here, they realize what they are abandoning for what little if anything the obtain in return.
They are certainly not ever going to get the respect they may or may not want (and most creationist honestly care less) by surrendering for the sake of acceptance. It’s like these farcical ecumenical conferences between Catholics and Lutherans, or Catholics and Orthodox, or Catholic and Methodist, where lot’s of talking, smiling, and hand-shaking is done, with an afterglow accompanying claims of great progress in the two sides coming closer together. It’s only after, in the cool light of day, that everyone realizes that the side that moved was any side but the catholics. Not an inch. If you want to move closer to them, feel welcome to do so. They, however, aren’t giving up anything. They can’t , you see. They claim to be “THE Church”. The true apostolic church. They have softened many of their anathemas against other denominations, but they still consider themselves the true and only authentic church.
What does this have to do with evolution? A lot. Evolution is the “true church” of science. It has it’s high priests who oversee all teaching and who forgive or excommunicate “heresy”. It has no motivation for compromise, and will make none. So whenever you read about any creationist or creationist group moving closer to the evolution paradigm, just remember, the evolutionist DID NOT move. That’s why I find mega’s statements about being open to “x” from creationist to simply be, perhaps unintentional, just another way of saying when creationist “conform” to Darwinian evolution, accepting their presumptions and assumptions, willing to remain inside the paradigm, well then, we’ll let them play with us. The more they conform, the more important the game will be that we let them play.
I’ve always found it ironic, yet predictable, that the same scientists who railed against the closed-mindedness of the Catholic church to Copernicus, Galileo, et. al. do not seem aware that they practice the exact same type of ostracization and censuring towards those scientists who threaten their doctrine and practice. It will be only when THAT ends, and only then, will there be any significant reapporachment. Creationists will not give up their God. Nor will the evolutionists. One might as well ponder where to plant the tree without a planet. Blessings.

I’ll give a link to a youtube video (8:12 long) talking about and analysing the claim that evolution is a conspiracy and that scientists are covering up a lack of evidence, which is not precisely what you’re saying, but I think it bears on your topic enough to make it relevant.

I agree that scientists tend to be somewhat disparaging of creationists, mostly because scientists consider the matter to have been settled a long time ago. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming, such as Endogenous Retroviruses, the fusion of human chromosome 2, the pattern of genetic similarity, cladistics etc. For example, take the famous discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil. Based upon the theory of evolution, it was predicted that a fossil like Tiktaalik would be discovered in a particular location in particular strata, and after several years of searching that is exactly what was found. We know evolution is science because it made a testable, falsifiable prediction that was borne out by the evidence. You say that creationism is true, but there is nothing about creationism that would have predicted this.
Evolution predicts specific pieces and patterns of evidence, and this is mostly what we find, with the theory changing in response to new discoveries. Creationism does not do this, as by its nature it incorporates every possible piece of evidence into the same explanation. That is why evolution has much more explanatory power than creationism.
I often encounter people comparing evolution to religion, with claims like ‘Darwin is considered a prophet of evolution’ or that only the faith of its adherents is keeping the theory of evolution from collapsing. To put it simply, these claims are all nonsense.
To quote young Earth creationist Todd Wood on the matter:
“Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.”http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.nz/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Well, I believe Todd has made his point. And I agree with some of it. I must talk to Todd and ask him why he is a creationist. I do notice that all of his statements do not add up to his acceptance of it. Just an approval as a theory. I assume that in spite of how well it explains, it must not explain enough. At least for him
And I certainly agree with many of your points. I do not believe in a vast conspiracy or cover-up. Such talk is based on ignorance, not knowledge. I personally think that most all evolutionists are honest, sincere scientists. They research and interpret through the paradigm in which they were taught. But you must admit that there has been plenty of repercussions for many that have strayed from the camp, so to speak.
Any paradigm can become cultic. And one shouldn’t claim there is no faith involved. Now that’s where you and I can begin a long and productive exchange. It’s not that faith is bad. I exercise it everyday. So do you. But for me not just in life, but other beliefs. So I am cool with faith. Nothing embarrassing about it. Just that many people don’t recognize it when they see it, or practice it. I will check out the video in a day or two. Just got back in town and responded to you (previous pst) and Christine. Thank you for doing that, altho I am sure I personally won’t agree with it. I have no problem with sincere people, even if they are sincerely ignorant. Conspiracy theories feed off of fear. Perfect love cast it out. Will check out video and be back with you. Thanks again.

” Not that creationism made a grand showing, but using a pigs tooth as proof of ape to man evolution should be a cause of great embarrassment.”

Especially as the person who made the original error of identification with Hesperopithecus haroldcooki, Henry Fairfleld Osborn, never claimed that it was a human ancestor, only an anthropoid ape. Not really a terrible mistake as many other Eurasian mammals (e.g., the bovid Neotragoceras) made an appearance in North America at that time, showing evidence of migration between the continents, and the teeth of peccaries (which are not the same as pigs, although related), do look rather like primate teeth (after all, the omnivorous diet is similar, it’s an excellent example of convergence).

Then, as now, scientists have little control over the hash that the press make of their findings. But people who want to bring up examples like this as some sort of way to discredit science should at least know the facts. This is a good place to start.

One important point is this (re the picture in the Illustrated London News).

“Forestier’s reconstruction of Nebraska Man was not reproduced in any other contemporary publication and has only recently been “rediscovered” and reprinted by critics of evolution (e.g., Hitching, 1982; Bowden, 1981; see also Fix, 1984). ”

see also:
“Hesperopithecus was not mentioned by anyone during the course of the Scopes trial, although other major discoveries of fossil hominids were discussed from the stand and in written testimony. Recent claims by Hitching that “the Hesperopithecus tooth was proudly displayed [at the trial] as evidence that man had a long evolutionary past” (1982, p. 211) are simply untrue; it is equally false that “the trial that became a significant turning point in U.S. educational history . . . was steered towards its verdict by a pig’s tooth.” (Hitching, 1982, p. 212) “

As per my reply to mega, my intention wasn’t to highlight the trial as the only or primary instance of such an example. I could add Nebraska man, Lucy, Ardi, Ida, Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon, Java, Piltdown, artiodactyl, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon (let’s see, it’s getting late), et al as examples of “evolution” that have either been discredited, proven to be frauds, or hotly contested even in the Darwinian community. My point was there’s plenty of error to go around. I don’t fault science for being wrong. That’s the risk of science. I reject the tendency to “over celebrate” every new discovery as “the nail” in the creationist coffin. There are plenty of other examples I could add but I think I have made my point. There’s an arrogance that comes with the naturalist position, inherent perhaps. I mean, if it’s all just chance, and here we are at the top (apparently), then who could know more than us, via natural means. It’s like the scientist who says we know just about everything concerning the universe, except perhaps the 94% made of supposed dark matter. And may I ask a personal question? Have you, or anyone on this site, ever read Kuhns Nature of Scientific Revolutions? Anyone. If not, I find that quite odd. It would be like a bunch of Christians yakking about what they know about the bible but they’ve never taken a course or read a book on biblical hermeneutics! And believe me, there are plenty of them out there who do just that.
I only ask because of what I discern in human nature, the often present unwillingness, sometimes bordering on hysteria, to challenges one’s paradigm. And given the history of man, and here specifically the sciences, one see’s such a volume of error and mistakes in almost every endeavor, well, I just don’t understand the propensity to ride the tide, as it were, and assume all is correct and well until, as Kuhn would say, their paradigm is dented, destroyed, then demolished (actually, I said that but Kuhn said as much and better).
I understand the creationist resistance, because it involves so much more than just science, it involves a personal belief system. Destroy that system and one eliminates their God. Wait. Maybe I do see some similarities. Well, take care.
Oh, and p.s. You are correct about the tooth. Truth is, there was no scientific evidence for evolution to provide, other than assumption and unverified claims. That is why such a small thing as the tooth could end up being such a big thing. It’s all they had.

Piltdown Man has been a known fraud for almost a century. It’s about as relevant to evolutionary biology as the Shroud of Turin is the the historical existence of Jesus. Cro-Magnons are early Homos sapiens, as species still very much with us. “Java Man” was an early name (now longer used) for Homo erectus, a well-established fossil taxon known from hundreds of specimens, many complete skeletons (as, of course, is true for “Neanderthal man” or Homo neanderthalensis).

There is no debate in science about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) being more closely related to humans than any extant or fossil ape (i.e., no debate about it being a member of the genus Australopithecus, the sister taxon to Homo). The debate that there is lies in how closely related A. afarensis is to the root of the genus Homo (i.e., is Lucy a grandmother or a great aunt). Ardipithecus is regarded by all scientists a form very close to the base of the divergence of humans (including australopithecines) from chimpanzees. Most put Ardipithecus on the human line, but a few think that this taxon may be an early form on the chimpanzee line, or basal to the split. A valid scientific debate that does not change the importance of this taxon in understanding human origins.

“Artiodactyl” is not a fossil but an order of extant mammals, including pigs, hippos, camels, giraffe, deer & catttle, amongst other families. The order is now called “Cetartiodactyla” to reflect the fact that molecular data places whales within this order, as more closely related to hippos than to any other living animal. Despite some initial controversy about this, the accumulated data have been overwhelming, and I know of no holdouts.

None of the other taxa, all types of archaeocete whales, have been “discredited” by scientists (creationists denying their significance is irrelevant —- because this has been simple dismissal from incredulity, not a careful examination of the evidence). There is absolutely no dissent (and I mean none) amongst scientists in including these taxa as early cetaceans.

“My point was there’s plenty of error to go around.”

You’ve made that clear here. But, perhaps, not in the way that you intended.

Trevor — I have not forgotten your question to me and will get back to you on that at some point. It requires more careful thought than a 5 minute break from work to rest my brain from data analysis, as I’ve been doing writing this.

Wow, someone got up on the wrong side of the Cambrian explosion, didn’t they. It seems you missed my point, while acknowledging it. And sorry, I disagree with some of your over optimistic assessments of fossil evidence. And there are holdouts. If it would actually mean anything I would gladly reference for you, but I doubt it would matter. Look, I understand you are totally sold out to your paradigm. We all tend to be. What I am trying to encourage is a bit of humility and compassion. I can almost “hear” the sharp tone in your thoughts. You don’t need to get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you.
And as I said above, thanks for acknowledging the errors, fraud, or mistakes that have been made. There are plenty more. I am not condemning those who make those (well, maybe the fraud). They are just made. And still are. And will continue to be. Thus, the humility.
And madam, if you think hippos became whales or even vice versa, then good for you. As Lincoln said, “You can fool…………”. You oversimplify your arguments. And seek to bolster them with ad hominem attacks. You can do better. Let go the fear.

“Wow, someone got up on the wrong side of the Cambrian explosion, didn’t they. ”

I not only got up on the right side of the Cambrian explosion, but on the right side of the enlightenment.

“And as I said above, thanks for acknowledging the errors, fraud, or mistakes that have been made.”

You should maybe have continued reading what I said about the rest of your list of “frauds” and “errors” being nothing of the sort.

“And sorry, I disagree with some of your over optimistic assessments of fossil evidence. And there are holdouts.”

Not amongst those who know that “artiodactyl” is an extant order of mammals, rather than a disputed fossil.

“What I am trying to encourage is a bit of humility and compassion. You don’t need to get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you.”

You can disagree all you like, but it’s my job to represent what scientists actually say, and what the known facts are. I don’t care what you believe, but I do care about false statements, and I will post a correction to those. Most of the creationists who post here do know a little about the science, even if they disagree with it. For example, they know that no scientist has said that whales come from hippos, which I agree would be an absurd proposition.

Hey, bet you missed me. On vacation for a week. Wow, I can see why you get along so well with others. I can tell you know a lot about science. Just exactly what you are told. No more. No less. And no, you didn’t learn much at all from Kuhn. Do you ever read outside of your ever shrinking paradigm. I know you don’t. You follow the party line to an absolute tee. Like reading from a script. You might try and challenge yourself occasionally. Every “error” I named has been touted as proof of Darwinianism evolution at some point, many as transitions. Though you rebut hippos to whales, you might want to check Miller and Levines’ biology textbook, or a Science Daily article in 2001, or another article by Science Daily in 2005 from UC Berkeley about Berkeley scientists along with French scientists finding the link between Hippos and whales (not to mention others who believe pigs are in the chain, or go back to Darwin who thought bears or bear-like creatures became whales).
You see Christine, things aren’t just the way you want them to be just because you wish them to be. Now understand, I, as stated many times before, don’t condemn or mock scientists just because they are wrong. I mock those who think they can’t be wrong. Thus the plea for humility.
And really, are you gonna play the “sexist” card? I would think “madam” is probably among the nicer things you have been called by those who disagree with you.
Concerning “artiodactyl”, of course they are an order of extant animals (goats, sheep, camels, pigs, cows, etc). The point is that various animals of this order, or their ancestors, I should say, are or were considered in the evolutionary line leading to whales. Stop staring at the trees, Christine, and notice the forest.
It’s comforting to know that you stand there in the line of fire, protecting fragile neo-darwinianism from unfriendly fire. And where would science be without you there to protect it from false charges. If you could remove the apparent twelve ton chip off your shoulder, you might enhance the chance of learning something new. Why do you blog, anyway? Just to yell at people? Vent anger? Surely science will progress without you there to protect it. You don’t seem to actually be interested in exchange of ideas (at least not contrary).
Again, a little history of science wouldn’t hurt, you know. It’s comforting, I imagine, to sit all cozy and warm in your self-conceived bubble of current truth and opinion. Just keep in mind, especially with the sciences, that’s todays truth is often found in the future on the trash heap of discarded ideas. Thus the encouragement to keep an open mind. You don’t have to discard your paradigm in order to consider the merits of another. Take care, “female scientist”.

The problem, of course, is that YEC organizations such as ICR and AiG don’t care about being correct. They care about adhering to their doctrinal viewpoints. If they cared about being correct they wouldn’t oppose the science that reveals that the earth and universe are old and that the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species.